NationStates Jolt Archive

inclusion or discrimination? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/harvard_women_s_hours)

In an effort to accommodate female Muslim students who follow strict dress codes that do not allow them to wear "appropriate" gym attire around men, Harvard has decided to designate their gym(s) as "women-only" for a few hours out of the week.

So what do you think, NSG? Is it creating a more equal and positive environment or discriminating? Or both? Or pancakes?

Oh, but what if the men wanted a "man's only" time?


Sexism would be the verdict in that case, or the media would claim.


No specialness for anyone. Evar.

Just ban Harvard already. Oh, and Yale, too, while you're at it.

Only if an equal number of men-only hours are allocated.

Harvard's policy is no different from commercial gyms that cater partially or even exclusively to women, said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Also, this.

Please, no one's rights are being violated through women's only hours, in fact, many women would no doubt enjoy the time.

If Muslim women can't work out with men present then it would be discrimination against Muslim women to not have women-only hours since that would exclude them from going to the gym. But it would also be discrimination against men to not have men-only hours as well. One of the reasons I don't get my upper body into shape is that it's embarrassing for a man to show women how weak I am, I bet most of the women at the gym lift at least twice as much as me. Imagine the gossip (did you see how weak that pathetic dork was? *giggle*), as a geek I lack confidence around women even without that embarrassment.

Oh, but what if the men wanted a "man's only" time?


Sexism would be the verdict in that case, or the media would claim.


No specialness for anyone. Evar.

My thoughts exactly. The Muslim women have to find their own way to accomodate, not force it on everyone else. That being said, Harvard is a private institution and can do whatever the hell they want.

Just ban Harvard already. Oh, and Yale, too, while you're at it.
I second that!:D
Please, no one's rights are being violated through women's only hours, in fact, many women would no doubt enjoy the time.
Many men would probably enjoy "Men only" hours.
Only if an equal number of men-only hours are allocated.

That might not work. What if they give the men horrible hours to go the gym? (I'm not sure what's the best and worst time to exercise, so forgive me here)

Meh. There are plenty of gyms that are gender-segregated anyway.

In my gym here in the Middle East, they have a women's only section and a regular section, with equal amounts of machines and such (it's a big gym, because each section takes up an entire story of the building).

You'll see women in the regular gym, though. And it's not only Muslim women who use the women's only section.

If they also have men-only hours (if any men feel a need for it), it should be ok.
Although, there are surely many more divisions you could make; and you can't end up with special hours for each individual just because they may have some incompatibility with everyone else.

inclusion or discrimination? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/harvard_women_s_hours)

In an effort to accommodate female Muslim students who follow strict dress codes that do not allow them to wear "appropriate" gym attire around men, Harvard has decided to designate their gym(s) as "women-only" for a few hours out of the week.

So what do you think, NSG? Is it creating a more equal and positive environment or discriminating? Or both? Or pancakes?

I think that if you want to go to the gym, you need to accept that there will be men there. There are already women's-only gyms (which I wouldn't bother with, personally, but I can understand that some women - especially middle-aged, overweight or generally self conscious women - would find the environment more appealing), and if female students want to work out they have many other options apart from the Harvard gym.

I think it's ridiculous that one of the local gyms has a "women's only" section of the gym, which is a separate room with a few bikes, a few treadmils and some whimpy weights. There's no "men's only" section. Men feel self conscious too! Get over it!

Oh, but what if the men wanted a "man's only" time?


Sexism would be the verdict in that case, or the media would claim.


No specialness for anyone. Evar.

Then we'd start having "20-30-year-old only" time, then "straights only time"... It's ridiculous. If someone cares that much, they should work out in privacy.

Please, no one's rights are being violated through women's only hours, in fact, many women would no doubt enjoy the time.

I'd hate "women's only time".

I think the whole idea is ridiculous.

Ugh.
This is too complicated to really put your finger on whether it's discrimination or not.
Although, the article did say a few hours per week. That's not that much time, y'know. I really doubt it will bother anyone anyway.

inclusion or discrimination? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/harvard_women_s_hours)

In an effort to accommodate female Muslim students who follow strict dress codes that do not allow them to wear "appropriate" gym attire around men, Harvard has decided to designate their gym(s) as "women-only" for a few hours out of the week.

So what do you think, NSG? Is it creating a more equal and positive environment or discriminating? Or both? Or pancakes?
Such stupidity.

Yes, some people are stupid enough to buy into patriarchal superstitions which place idiotic gendered requirements on clothing. No, nobody should be expected to inconvenience themselves in any way to accomodate these bullshit beliefs.

Yes, it is sexist to institute "women only" gym time, just as it would be to have "man only" gym time. I'm forced to wonder what would happen if Harvard decided to have "white's only" gym time. Or what if Christians decided they couldn't work out around Muslims, so they needed "Christian only" gym time?

Although, there are surely many more divisions you could make; and you can't end up with special hours for each individual just because they may have some incompatibility with everyone else.
While other divisions have been made for example in apartheid it is usually men and women that are separated in a modern society. Separate teams and competitions for men and women in sports, separate dressing rooms, showers and saunas for men and women, separate titles for men and women like he/she, sir/m'am or husband/wife, separate products for men and women even when both variants of the product are suitable for both genders, and so on.

All of those divisions are just as silly as women only hours at the gym but it seems some westerners are uncomfortable being in a sauna with persons of the opposite gender. If they enter a sauna at the bathhouse they should expect naked people. Still, society does accommodate the need for gender division even though it sees the need for other divisions as racist or otherwise taboo.

As a woman with no religious inclination, I find that this is a a fine choice for non-religious reasons. It creates a comfortable environment for women to work out without feeling like they are being ogled by male gym members. It creates a positive environment for all women, not just Muslim women.

Some times it's a matter of comfort. This is one of those times when it becomes a matter of personal comfort.

I'm not saying that all men would ogle, I'm simply saying that where it's single gender, one may feel more at ease and not like they are being watched because they are wearing work out clothes that are form fitting...

Let's face it... unless you're totally flat-chested, something IS going to bounce at one point or another...

The question is one of 'reasonable accomodation'. We accomodate religious belief. Kosher meals are available on campus, for instance. So I guess the question is: Is this a reasonable accomodation, or does it run afoul of campus anti-discrimination policies?I'd say it's reasonable accomodation, since its only one of the many gyms (incidentally the one furthest from the center of campus) and it it's only for a few hours every week. Sure, it inconveniences people that primarily use that gym during those hours who happen to be male, but it pales in comparison to the cruel oppression that was brought down on us poor fencers by the volley ball and wrestling teams at UVa! :mad:

inclusion or discrimination? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/harvard_women_s_hours)

In an effort to accommodate female Muslim students who follow strict dress codes that do not allow them to wear "appropriate" gym attire around men, Harvard has decided to designate their gym(s) as "women-only" for a few hours out of the week.

So what do you think, NSG? Is it creating a more equal and positive environment or discriminating? Or both? Or pancakes?

The question is one of 'reasonable accomodation'. We accomodate religious belief. Kosher meals are available on campus, for instance. So I guess the question is: Is this a reasonable accomodation, or does it run afoul of campus anti-discrimination policies?

If Muslim women can't work out with men present then it would be discrimination against Muslim women to not have women-only hours since that would exclude them from going to the gym.
Ehhhh, wrong. They still have the option to go to the gym. You don't see the Amish bitching about things not conforming to their strict religious beliefs, do you? No, they wander off and do their own shit. Muslims are the only medievally strict religion where they expect the world as it stands to conform to them in such a way that they can interact with the real world. No, fuck them. This is the US. They want to use the gym? Ok, go to a women only gym (which is another fucking matter to begin with - everyone but white men can have things exclusively for them without being called racist/sexist) or don't fucking go. They are not being discriminated against because no actions are being taken against them, it is their own choices that are excluding them.

As a woman with no religious inclination, I find that this is a a fine choice for non-religious reasons. It creates a comfortable environment for women to work out without feeling like they are being ogled by male gym members. It creates a positive environment for all women, not just Muslim women.

Some times it's a matter of comfort. This is one of those times when it becomes a matter of personal comfort.

I'm not saying that all men would ogle, I'm simply saying that where it's single gender, one may feel more at ease and not like they are being watched because they are wearing work out clothes that are form fitting...

Let's face it... unless you're totally flat-chested, something IS going to bounce at one point or another...
Call me crazy, but I think it's much better to simply kick out any person who harasses anybody else.

Maleness doesn't make somebody oggle. Maleness doesn't make a guy act like a rude jackass. If somebody who happens to be male acts like a jackass, kick them out of the gym for being a jackass.

Plenty of male gym-goers are there to work out and don't particularly care what's bouncing around them. Believe it or not, plenty of male gym goers are gay. As are plenty of female gym-goers. Would you support a "heterosexual women and gay men only" work-out time?

Not to mention the fact that 99% of the straight boys at the gym are waaaaaaaaaaay more interested at staring at their own pecks in the mirror than at watching anybody else's chest bounce.

I usually find that I'm more likely to be "checked out" by other women, and women are far more likely to be openly scrutinizing my body. If I wanted to avoid oggling I would need to work out during a guys-only work out time. :(

. Muslims are the only medievally strict religion where they expect the world as it stands to conform to them in such a way that they can interact with the real world.
Gotta call bullshit on that. American Evangelical Christians totally hold the title in that contest.

Gotta call bullshit on that. American Evangelical Christians totally hold the title in that contest.

Stupidity and medieval religious restrictions arn't the same thing. Though they are in the case of radical Muslims.

They're providing equal opportunity, yet at the same time they're discriminating.

They are not being discriminated against because no actions are being taken against them, it is their own choices that are excluding them.
Interesting, I'm curious what your views are on 2 other issues that have been mentioned here.

If a school serves pork but no kosher or vegetarian alternative. Is there no discrimination because nobody is excluded from eating the pork and it's the Muslim, Jewish and vegetarian kids' own choice to not eat the pork. Or is it discrimination to not offer food that suits everyone?

Should there be separate or common dressing rooms, showers and saunas for both genders in bathhouses. Should the gender division conservative Christian morals dictate be catered to?

They're a private university so they can do whatever they want for all I care, even if it means bending over to the ridiculous and life-hating traditions of religion. What a bunch of pussies.

If they introduce "men-only" hours in equal quantity, I will have no objections. If this does not occur, it cannot be construed as anything less than discrimination determined on grounds of gender and religion.

If this is ok, then I feel that the homophobes should also be catered to - heck, a gay man might be undressing in the locker room with a homophobe - perish forbid.

So we need a "homophobes-only" and a "gays only" time period at the gym.

A homophobe need only quote Leviticus, and apply his own interpretation, to make it a religious requirement.

oddly as a man (*makes sure by doing some good driving*) I'm not too bothered, if the women want to watch hot sweat drip down from each others well toned bodies without the presence of a man I voice no complaint

I do however state that what happens when two women are in the showers pumped full of hormones stays in the showers

Imagine the gossip (did you see how weak that pathetic dork was? *giggle*)

just show them your massive wang :)

it works on the Internet movies...

I second that!:D

as do I but I am willing to take a more extreme stance should it become available

If they introduce "men-only" hours in equal quantity, I will have no objections. If this does not occur, it cannot be construed as anything less than discrimination determined on grounds of gender and religion.

well if the men actually want men only hours why not?

If they introduce "men-only" hours in equal quantity, I will have no objections. If this does not occur, it cannot be construed as anything less than discrimination determined on grounds of gender and religion.

Come on.

I can't imagine that men need their own hours. Ogling women is part of the "guy" experience in the gym. And if the guy is gay, well, there's no real problem.

Seriously though, I'd think even non-Muslim women might be happy to know that there's at least a few hours where they don't have to deal with the salacious scrutiny of some of the more musky of the hetero male popluation.

Come on.

I can't imagine that men need their own hours. Ogling women is part of the "guy" experience in the gym. And if the guy is gay, well, there's no real problem.

Seriously though, I'd think even non-Muslim women might be happy to know that there's at least a few hours where they don't have to deal with the salacious scrutiny of some of the more musky of the hetero male popluation.

Not in the slightest. If you seek to implement and conceive policy with equality as an axiom, it must be followed to its logical conclusion.

Et tu, Bottle? I find it interesting how people without a strong religious upbringing find it so easy to dismiss following religious codes as "bullshit". It isn't bullshit to those following those strictures, it's a matter of their immortal soul. It's all fine and dandy for you to think it's poppycock, but I assure you, they don't. Harvard wants their money just as much as it wants anyone else's.



Thing is, it's not a choice to them. Do you hold any strong beliefs requiring certain behaviors of you?

Unless we're just going to say "fuck it" and plunge the globe into total war over whose beliefs are more archaic, restrictive and loony, and the most devout faction wins control of the world -- and that would be one energetic war -- we must learn to live together. That means redefining, and getting realistic about, what an "inconvenience" is.


I agree with Pantless and Bottle. Fuck the people who are asking for this special treatment.

Lots of people have strong beliefs. Take fundamentalist Christians for example. They MUST believe that the world was created in a few days.

Are you going to make an exception for them, and put them in separate classes where they won't be taught about evolution or cosmology?

Are you serious?

Such stupidity.

Yes, some people are stupid enough to buy into patriarchal superstitions which place idiotic gendered requirements on clothing. No, nobody should be expected to inconvenience themselves in any way to accomodate these bullshit beliefs.

Yes, it is sexist to institute "women only" gym time, just as it would be to have "man only" gym time. I'm forced to wonder what would happen if Harvard decided to have "white's only" gym time. Or what if Christians decided they couldn't work out around Muslims, so they needed "Christian only" gym time?

Et tu, Bottle? I find it interesting how people without a strong religious upbringing find it so easy to dismiss following religious codes as "bullshit". It isn't bullshit to those following those strictures, it's a matter of their immortal soul. It's all fine and dandy for you to think it's poppycock, but I assure you, they don't. Harvard wants their money just as much as it wants anyone else's.

Ehhhh, wrong. They still have the option to go to the gym. You don't see the Amish bitching about things not conforming to their strict religious beliefs, do you? No, they wander off and do their own shit. Muslims are the only medievally strict religion where they expect the world as it stands to conform to them in such a way that they can interact with the real world. No, fuck them. This is the US. They want to use the gym? Ok, go to a women only gym (which is another fucking matter to begin with - everyone but white men can have things exclusively for them without being called racist/sexist) or don't fucking go. They are not being discriminated against because no actions are being taken against them, it is their own choices that are excluding them.

Thing is, it's not a choice to them. Do you hold any strong beliefs requiring certain behaviors of you?

Unless we're just going to say "fuck it" and plunge the globe into total war over whose beliefs are more archaic, restrictive and loony, and the most devout faction wins control of the world -- and that would be one energetic war -- we must learn to live together. That means redefining, and getting realistic about, what an "inconvenience" is.

Not in the slightest. If you seek to implement and conceive policy with equality as an axiom, it must be followed to its logical conclusion.

Not if there is no demand for said "logical" conclusion.

I agree with Pantless and Bottle. Fuck the people who are asking for this special treatment.

Lots of people have strong beliefs. Take fundamentalist Christians for example. They MUST believe that the world was created in a few days.

Are you going to make an exception for them, and put them in separate classes where they won't be taught about evolution or cosmology?

Are you serious?

Are you?

Are you seriously contending that working out and the teaching of cosmology are the same thing? Try another false dichotomy, please.

Are you?

Are you seriously contending that working out and the teaching of cosmology are the same thing? Try another false dichotomy, please.

I'm seriously contending that if you are making an exception for someone because they have strongly held beliefs, then you need to make an exception for everyone with strongly held beliefs.

Hardly a false dichotomy.

Harvard is a private institution and can do what it wants. Period.

Having said that, what would *I* do if I were in charge of Harvard?

I'd make no special exception. If their religion prohibits them from using the gym then it prohibits them from using the gym. Giving them special treatment wouldn't be so awful if it didn't mean taking time away from every single other student who would otherwise have access to the facilities during those times.

Is it such a big deal? Probably not, but it does start to establish a precedent.

There was an incident not long ago where a woman whose religion (Islam) had her covering her face wanted to get a Driver's License. She didn't want to remove her coverings for the photo. Anybody know how that one turned out?

Well, I know my swimming pool at home had women-only hours, and I don't remember anybody complaining about it. I knew quite a few who only went then, and never thought twice about it. Still, I wonder whether it would be newsworthy is Harvard had forgotten to state in their press release that it was to encourange Muslim women, and just said women in general?

Call me crazy, but I think it's much better to simply kick out any person who harasses anybody else.

Maleness doesn't make somebody oggle. Maleness doesn't make a guy act like a rude jackass. If somebody who happens to be male acts like a jackass, kick them out of the gym for being a jackass.

Plenty of male gym-goers are there to work out and don't particularly care what's bouncing around them. Believe it or not, plenty of male gym goers are gay. As are plenty of female gym-goers. Would you support a "heterosexual women and gay men only" work-out time?

Not to mention the fact that 99% of the straight boys at the gym are waaaaaaaaaaay more interested at staring at their own pecks in the mirror than at watching anybody else's chest bounce.

I usually find that I'm more likely to be "checked out" by other women, and women are far more likely to be openly scrutinizing my body. If I wanted to avoid oggling I would need to work out during a guys-only work out time. :(

You make good points.

Of course, some of us feel more comfortable in a single gender setting. And with rising rates of obesity and levels of lethargy, anything to make a setting more comfortable to work out in is worth it.

While it is easier to throw out the one doing the harassment, creating special times is just as effective, especially when there isn't just one gym. But then do it for both genders so it's not selective.

And to answer your question as stupidly as I can... why not? Feather boas for all! ;)

On one hand, it's stupid. On the other hand, yes, Harvard is a private school and can decide to bar men from the university entirely if they so decide.

On the other hand, it's still stupid. Just set aside a section for women only if it means that much. One of the gyms I looked at had a men-only section, a women-only section, and a co-ed section. The same would work just as well there.

If a school serves pork but no kosher or vegetarian alternative. Is there no discrimination because nobody is excluded from eating the pork and it's the Muslim, Jewish and vegetarian kids' own choice to not eat the pork.
Duh. But who the hell eats pork? Much less from a school cafeteria? They can bring their own shit, and they will be better for it.

Et tu, Bottle? I find it interesting how people without a strong religious upbringing find it so easy to dismiss following religious codes as "bullshit".

Why? Wouldn't that be precisely what one would expect?

Of course, plenty of people with very strong religious upbringings (like my partner) share my opinion.


It isn't bullshit to those following those strictures, it's a matter of their immortal soul.

No, it's not. It is nothing more, and nothing less, than their personal opinions. Period.


It's all fine and dandy for you to think it's poppycock, but I assure you, they don't. Harvard wants their money just as much as it wants anyone else's.

And if Harvard wants to cater to patriarchal superstitions by implementing a sexist policy, that's up to them as long as they do so within the law.

Won't change the fact that it's a sexist policy, or that the people in question are buying into a bunch of superstitious twaddle about gender roles.


Thing is, it's not a choice to them.

Yes, it is. They COULD chose to reject those beliefs, but they don't want to. The fact that they feel they have excellent reasons for their choice doesn't change the fact that it's their choice.


Do you hold any strong beliefs requiring certain behaviors of you?

Yes, I choose to hold several strong beliefs which require that I behave in a certain manner.


Unless we're just going to say "fuck it" and plunge the globe into total war over whose beliefs are more archaic, restrictive and loony, and the most devout faction wins control of the world -- and that would be one energetic war -- we must learn to live together. That means redefining, and getting realistic about, what an "inconvenience" is.
You mean like the inconvenience of having to use the gym the same way everybody else does? The inconvenience of being treated in the same manner as everyone else, rather than getting your very own special set of rules? The inconvenience of having to share public spaces with--gasp--other members of the public?

I'd create a "men's only" hour just to avoid the accusations of discrimination, and because it fits in with my morals, but Harvard is a private institution and can do whatever it wants. If it wants to permanently enslave all males on campus to their new female overlords and build a giant secret fortress where the future of the world is decided, accessible only to women, I'll just keep in mind not to send my son there.

One of the reasons I don't get my upper body into shape is that it's embarrassing for a man to show women how weak I am, I bet most of the women at the gym lift at least twice as much as me. Imagine the gossip (did you see how weak that pathetic dork was? *giggle*), as a geek I lack confidence around women even without that embarrassment.

Actually, loads of people go to work out for highly similar reasons to yours -- they don't feel self-confident enough, or they wish to increase their physical prowess. Very few people go there only to be able to say they lifted more or ran faster or rowed for longer than the next guy, and needless to say, those aren't the ones you're ever going to want to interact with either.

I go to the gym about every other day. Now, I'm probably just about the average weakling -- 5'9" ish, 120 pounds, barely capable of running half a mile at a stretch or doing more than about fifteen pushups at a time. However, instead of thinking of how poorly I'm doing in comparison to all of the college student athletes who did track and field through high school and play basketball or football after classes, I think of myself as doing a service to the community: I recall how intimidated I was by how good everyone else was doing when I started exercising. Then I imagine another individual like me, one who does little exercise and has a poor self-image. Wouldn't he be relieved to see that there's someone else who can only overhead press 35 lbs and can't touch his toes? :P

And for the record, I'm male and, when at the gymnasium, I frequently don't even remember to look around for attractive people running around in their underwear. I go there for a purpose, and that isn't it.

The question is one of 'reasonable accomodation'. We accomodate religious belief. Kosher meals are available on campus, for instance. So I guess the question is: Is this a reasonable accomodation, or does it run afoul of campus anti-discrimination policies?

I don't know if that is a good analogy. Kosher meals are not served to the exclusion of other meals, and there are no times when cafeteria's are open only to those who want such meals.

My gut is definitely to see a problem with this. For one thing, it's clear discrimination. It would be one thing if there was a woman-only and a man-only gym on campus, but picking women-only hours, when men do not have equal gym access, is clearly discrimination. For another, I know how hard it is to fit workout time into a schedule and, while it may only be a few hours a week, they are prime workout hours. The first thing I thought when I saw the hours listed was how busy I've seen gyms at similar times. The least they could have done if they were going to try and keep men out of the gyms was choose crappy hours to do it.

Of course, as others have said, they're a private university, so I don't see how they would be legally barred from this decision.

If a school serves pork but no kosher or vegetarian alternative. Is there no discrimination because nobody is excluded from eating the pork and it's the Muslim, Jewish and vegetarian kids' own choice to not eat the pork. Or is it discrimination to not offer food that suits everyone?

Is it discrimination that my school cafeteria didn't offer the food options I wanted? I am morally opposed to the use of mandarin oranges in salads, so is the school discriminating against me if they only provide a salad option with oranges in it?


Should there be separate or common dressing rooms, showers and saunas for both genders in bathhouses. Should the gender division conservative Christian morals dictate be catered to?
Personally, I am still offended by the fact that I could not have a male roommate in college (unless I moved off campus). To me, that's no different than saying a white student can't have a black roommate. But such is the stupid gendered BS we live with.

Meh, I don't see anything wrong with a "woman's only" Gym hours. Of course I work out in my own private gym so even if this does happen at my college I won't be affected, but hey, whatever make the women happy and comfortable.

In an ideal world, Harvard would not have chosen to do this. In an ideal world, no one would ever teach girls that they are evil people if they let men see them in exercise attire. In an ideal world, no men would ogle women at gyms, and no women would feel uncomfortable exercising around men - and in those lovely ideal circumstances, this decision of Harvard's would be stupid, unnecessary, and sexist.

But the simple fact is that our world is far from ideal, and that some women very firmly believe that they must not allow men to see them in skimpy or form-fitting clothes, and that some guys really will be asses to women, and that many, many women would really rather not have to worry about what guys are thinking while they exercise. Given those facts, and given that it seems that Harvard is only creating women's-only hours at one of multiple gyms and for only a few hours a week, I find it hard to see this as unreasonable.

Et tu, Bottle? I find it interesting how people without a strong religious upbringing find it so easy to dismiss following religious codes as "bullshit". It isn't bullshit to those following those strictures, it's a matter of their immortal soul. It's all fine and dandy for you to think it's poppycock, but I assure you, they don't. Harvard wants their money just as much as it wants anyone else's.

Personally, I don't dismiss their beliefs, and I still think it is ridiculous to expect special treatment because of one's beliefs.

While I think that accommodations should be made for such beliefs when talking about required action (ie. hijab should not be banned in schools, etc.), I think it is up to those who hold such beliefs ot find ways to accommodate them into daily chosen actions. An orthodox Muslim bathing suit has been created - one which covers nearly all of the skin and the hair. I'm sure a similar design could be used for workout clothing.


There was an incident not long ago where a woman whose religion (Islam) had her covering her face wanted to get a Driver's License. She didn't want to remove her coverings for the photo. Anybody know how that one turned out?

IIRC, the ruling was that she could not obtain a driver's license in a burqua - she had to uncover her face.

But this is a good example of a point at which certain accommodations for her can and should be made. This is the state we are dealing with, and having to go without a driver's license can be a huge problem. I do not think she should have been allowed to take the picture in a burqua (what's the point of a photo ID when you can't see any distinguishing features?). However, I do think it would have been acceptable for them to provide a female photographer (so that she wouldn't have to reveal her face to a man) and, in a situation which is not time-sensitive, I think it would be appropriate to provide a female officer to check her ID.


Meanwhile, I have to say that I have a rather low self-esteem. I hate the way I look in workout clothes. However, when a gym was available to me, having men around didn't make me any more or less uncomfortable. It was pretty obvious that the people there were concentrating on their own workouts, not looking at the flabbier portions of my body. Does anyone here really go to the gym to spend time ogling others?

I don't know if that is a good analogy. Kosher meals are not served to the exclusion of other meals, and there are no times when cafeteria's are open only to those who want such meals.

My gut is definitely to see a problem with this. For one thing, it's clear discrimination. It would be one thing if there was a woman-only and a man-only gym on campus, but picking women-only hours, when men do not have equal gym access, is clearly discrimination. For another, I know how hard it is to fit workout time into a schedule and, while it may only be a few hours a week, they are prime workout hours. The first thing I thought when I saw the hours listed was how busy I've seen gyms at similar times. The least they could have done if they were going to try and keep men out of the gyms was choose crappy hours to do it.

Of course, as others have said, they're a private university, so I don't see how they would be legally barred from this decision.It's not the only gym on campus. Actually, its the one furthest from the center. They could set up a women only gym, or create rooms in one gym that's women only, but that will cost less than setting up a schedule when one gym is reserved for women. To be honest, if it was my university, I'd rather they set up something like that instead of spending money on a different form of discrimination (which your alternatives are as well).

Also, regarding Kosher: It's more of an inconvenience that you allege, seeing as you would need seperate cooking utensils for kosher food and can't simply reuse other pans and whatnot in order to cook kosher meals, as then they wouldn't be kosher anymore (particularly where frying beef or milk products is concerned).

sure its sexist. or maybe religionist.

i dont care.

all that matters to me is access and demand. if there are enough muslim women to make use of the gym those few hours of the week and if they arent denying men their best access times, its fine.

if the facility is going to be mostly empty at times when it would otherwise be full of men who have no other good options of gym time, its not fine.It's not just muslim women, though. Other women are allowed in as well.

sure its sexist. or maybe religionist.

i dont care.

all that matters to me is access and demand. if there are enough muslim women to make use of the gym those few hours of the week and if they arent denying men their best access times, its fine.

if the facility is going to be mostly empty at times when it would otherwise be full of men who have no other good options of gym time, its not fine.

sure its sexist. or maybe religionist.

i dont care.

all that matters to me is access and demand. if there are enough muslim women to make use of the gym those few hours of the week and if they arent denying men their best access times, its fine.

if the facility is going to be mostly empty at times when it would otherwise be full of men who have no other good options of gym time, its not fine.
Honest question:

What if it was a whites-only policy during certain hours, as per the religious beliefs of some group? Would people have the same reaction?

Honest question:

What if it was a whites-only policy during certain hours, as per the religious beliefs of some group? Would people have the same reaction?Is there an argument in favor of separating people by skin color that is as valid as one on separating them by gender?

Is there an argument in favor of separating people by skin color that is as valid as one on separating them by gender?
In my personal opinion there is no more argument for gender segregation than racial segregation. It's just still culturally acceptable to segregate by gender, while it is not acceptable to do so by ethnicity. But that's a side topic.

Remember that in this case the "argument" is "Allah sez." I know plenty of religions in which God demands racial segregation.

In my personal opinion there is no more argument for gender segregation than racial segregation. It's just still culturally acceptable to segregate by gender, while it is not acceptable to do so by ethnicity. But that's a side topic.That is a side topic, however, I do disagree. There's plenty of legitimate biological reasons to "feel uncomfortable" around members of the opposite sex.
Remember that in this case the "argument" is "Allah sez." I know plenty of religions in which God demands racial segregation.No, Allah sez is the basis for the argument "Why I feel uncomfortable around men". Whatever the reason, the women don't feel comfortable in the presence of men. "Allah sez" is a lot less of a good reason for special hours in one of many gyms than would be "we get pinched in our asses" is for allowing segregated underground trains for women in Tokyo or "women are helpless when they're alone in parking lots" is for allowing special parking for women.

I heard this on the radio yesterday and immediatlly thought "Someones going to bring this up on NSG."


Low and behold...

That is a side topic, however, I do disagree. There's plenty of legitimate biological reasons to "feel uncomfortable" around members of the opposite sex.

I'd rather not bother with this hijack, if you don't mind.


No, Allah sez is the basis for the argument "Why I feel uncomfortable around men".Whatever the reason, the women don't feel comfortable in the presence of men.
Meh. To me, this is a very petty semantic argument. The point is that these women chose to invoke their religious beliefs when they asked to have this segregation imposed on an otherwise-"public" facility. (Public in the sense that it is open to the university community, though it is obviously private property belonging to the university.)

If they wanted to present actual arguments for why they should be allowed to deny men access to the gym, they could have. Instead they simply said that it offended their modesty to have men around while they worked out. The appropriate, non-asshole solution on their part would be to choose not to work out around men. The assholish solution was to ask that men be denied use of the facilities.

I don't like when other women stare at my body and size me up at the gym. It offends my modesty. I guess this means I should demand that my school provide gym times during which I am the only female allowed to use the gym. Of course, I'll need to invoke some bullshit superstition for people to give a rats ass, because if I simply say it makes me uncomfortable then people will (rightfully) laugh in my face.

"Allah sez" is a lot less of a good reason for special hours in one of many gyms than would be "we get pinched in our asses" is for allowing segregated underground trains for women in Tokyo or "women are helpless when they're alone in parking lots" is for allowing special parking for women.
I absolutely agree. "God sez" is a shitty argument all around. Meanwhile, "I've just been assaulted" is a goddam good argument for action of some kind.

Of course, I believe that sexual harassment on trains is better dealt with by, you know, actually punishing harassers, rather than simply putting women in segregated cars. But that's because I don't believe in blaming a person's genitals if they behave badly.

Of course, I believe that sexual harassment on trains is better dealt with by, you know, actually punishing harassers, rather than simply putting women in segregated cars. But that's because I don't believe in blaming a person's genitals if they behave badly.

Do we really need a "Phallic implements don't rape people, people rape people!" initiative now?

Do we really need a "Phallic implements don't rape people, people rape people!" initiative now?
Admittedly, the idea of holding RAPISTS responsible for rape is still pretty controversial.

I'd rather not bother with this hijack, if you don't mind.I wouldn't either, but then we'll just be shouting "I'm right and I won't say why!" at eachother...


Meh. To me, this is a very petty semantic argument. The point is that these women chose to invoke their religious beliefs when they asked to have this segregation imposed on an otherwise-"public" facility. (Public in the sense that it is open to the university community, though it is obviously private property belonging to the university.)

If they wanted to present actual arguments for why they should be allowed to deny men access to the gym, they could have. Instead they simply said that it offended their modesty to have men around while they worked out. The appropriate, non-asshole solution on their part would be to choose not to work out around men. The assholish solution was to ask that men be denied use of the facilities.Where would they work out then?
I absolutely agree. "God sez" is a shitty argument all around. Meanwhile, "I've just been assaulted" is a goddam good argument for action of some kind.But the ends have plenty of relevant precedents as opposed to "God sez no blacks".
Of course, I believe that sexual harassment on trains is better dealt with by, you know, actually punishing harassers, rather than simply putting women in segregated cars. But that's because I don't believe in blaming a person's genitals if they behave badly.A nice idea, but unfortunately not practical. Japan is a rather crowded place, and consequently so are the underground trains. The likelihood of finding out which and how many of the men had been doing the pinching is rather low.

Admittedly, the idea of holding RAPISTS responsible for rape is still pretty controversial.

Thats because rape is the victims fault, dur








:rolleyes:

Does anyone here really go to the gym to spend time ogling others?


I know plenty of women who go just to get checked out by men. I know plenty of men who take advantage of said women's purpose for going to the gym and check them out.

Anyway, as to my actual opinion, I think its idiotic. However, I also know that Harvard is a (extremelly wealthy) private institution, and I dont go to Harvard, so all I can do is roll my eyes at them and hope this trend doesnt spread.

I object to the sexist use of seperate bathrooms and lockerrooms.

In other words, they already have sexist policies for the purpose of modesty. This just draws the line a little differently than we're currently used to.

Anyway, as to my actual opinion, I think its idiotic. However, I also know that Harvard is a (extremelly wealthy) private institution, and I dont go to Harvard, so all I can do is roll my eyes at them and hope this trend doesnt spread.It's been currently contained to one of Harvard's gyms...

It's been currently contained to one of Harvard's gyms...

So who is to keep the infestation from spreading? Volunteers? Anyone?

So who is to keep the infestation from spreading? Volunteers? Anyone?

*salute*

We have to contain the infestation of women!

the big difference is that men don't care about having 'men-only' hours

Such stupidity.

Yes, some people are stupid enough to buy into patriarchal superstitions which place idiotic gendered requirements on clothing. No, nobody should be expected to inconvenience themselves in any way to accomodate these bullshit beliefs.

Yes, it is sexist to institute "women only" gym time, just as it would be to have "man only" gym time. I'm forced to wonder what would happen if Harvard decided to have "white's only" gym time. Or what if Christians decided they couldn't work out around Muslims, so they needed "Christian only" gym time?

I agree with this ... while they are a private school and ultimatly that it should be legal it is not right by any means

I object to the sexist use of seperate bathrooms and lockerrooms.

In other words, they already have sexist policies for the purpose of modesty. This just draws the line a little differently than we're currently used to.

in popular gyms all across the US there are special deals (women join for $1) and special equipment to attract women to gyms that are man-centric. A lot of women need specialized equipment that takes their smaller size into consideration. A few gyms offer women-only rooms for women who not only don't want to be gawked at by testosterone fueled men but also to house the smaller equipment

Here in Vegas some gym is getting sued over it by a guy that is angry that he isn't getting the join for a dollar deal.

I object to the sexist use of seperate bathrooms and lockerrooms.

In other words, they already have sexist policies for the purpose of modesty. This just draws the line a little differently than we're currently used to.

And in a different way.

Personally I think the "need" for separate bathrooms and the like comes from societal pressures more than anything else. The social norms on that break down in the same places that gender norms break down.

But, putting that aside, we're talking about taking a co-ed facility and setting aside special times for members of one sex, not about having separate facilities for each sex.

Is there an argument in favor of separating people by skin color that is as valid as one on separating them by gender?

There was for a lot of years if not today ... we eventually found it un-acceptable dispite thoes arguments

One that uses 100 percent of the facility rather then a portion of it during that period.

Having seperate locker-room does not deny the use of an entire facility to anyoneDepends on your definition of facility. I'm willing to extend the definition to the other gyms guys can go to that are closer to the campus. Then women would not be given access to an exclusive 100% of the facility.

I object to the sexist use of seperate bathrooms and lockerrooms.

In other words, they already have sexist policies for the purpose of modesty. This just draws the line a little differently than we're currently used to.
One that uses 100 percent of the facility rather then a portion of it during that period.

Having seperate locker-room does not deny the use of an entire facility to anyone

No, Allah sez is the basis for the argument "Why I feel uncomfortable around men". Whatever the reason, the women don't feel comfortable in the presence of men. "Allah sez" is a lot less of a good reason for special hours in one of many gyms than would be "we get pinched in our asses" is for allowing segregated underground trains for women in Tokyo or "women are helpless when they're alone in parking lots" is for allowing special parking for women.
Bull. This is not related to the Tokyo separate trains/areas. That was a safety concern, this is a bullshit radical religion thing. You know why you need to go to the gym to exercise? You don't. If they are so limited that they can't exercise with men, congratulations, you get to exercise at home. There is no, absolutely no, reason to pander to this bullshit. Pandering just encourages and supports the idea that it is ok and they should be allowed to force their particular medieval, backwards religious beliefs on those people who don't believe what they do.

Bull. This is not related to the Tokyo separate trains/areas. Neither is it related to racial segregation, but apparently that gets used to oppose this.
That was a safety concern, this is a bullshit radical religion thing. You know why you need to go to the gym to exercise? You don't. If they are so limited that they can't exercise with men, congratulations, you get to exercise at home. There is no, absolutely no, reason to pander to this bullshit. Pandering just encourages and supports the idea that it is ok and they should be allowed to force their particular medieval, backwards religious beliefs on those people who don't believe what they do.You have a rather skewed view of "forced", considering that this is happening in one gym, incidentally the furthest one away from the center of campus, for a limited time each week.

You have a rather skewed view of "forced", considering that this is happening in one gym, incidentally the furthest one away from the center of campus, for a limited time each week.
"Segregation is ok, its only the schools out in the boonies."
Location is irrelevant.
"Segregation is ok, its only one school out in the boonies."
Number is irrelevant.
"Segregation is ok, its only one school out in the boonies once a week."
Amount of time is irrelevant.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Dr. King Jr.
Fitting quote Dr King, thanks.

I don't see the big deal - there are several gyms on campus and this is the campuses least used gym - and it's only for a total of two hour on three week days. what problems do you realistically expect to come of this?

I don't see the big deal - there are several gyms on campus and this is the campuses least used gym - and it's only for a total of two hour on three week days. what problems do you realistically expect to come of this?
Read my other post. Pandering to their religious beliefs, which are already radical and off-path, will just encourage and support their idea that everyone should have to adhere to their beliefs.

"Segregation is ok, its only the schools out in the boonies."
Location is irrelevant.
"Segregation is ok, its only one school out in the boonies."
Number is irrelevant.
"Segregation is ok, its only one school out in the boonies once a week."
Amount of time is irrelevant.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Dr. King Jr.
Fitting quote Dr King, thanks.

While I agree with you, I'm certain someone will say,

"It's not injustice if we do it in the name of ecumenical understanding!"

inclusion or discrimination? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/harvard_women_s_hours)

In an effort to accommodate female Muslim students who follow strict dress codes that do not allow them to wear "appropriate" gym attire around men, Harvard has decided to designate their gym(s) as "women-only" for a few hours out of the week.

So what do you think, NSG? Is it creating a more equal and positive environment or discriminating? Or both? Or pancakes?

"You will have to walk through here." *detector goes-off* "I am sorry, you have penis, you will have to leave."

Fight fiercely, Harvard, fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill.
Albeit they possess the might,
Nonetheless we have the will.

How we will celebrate our victory,
We shall invite the whole team up for tea. (How jolly!)
Hurl that spheroid down the field,
And fight, fight, fight!

Fight fiercely, Harvard, fight, fight, fight!
Impress them with our prowess, do!
Oh, fellas, do not let the crimson down,
Be of stout heart and true.

Come on, chaps, fight for Harvard's glorious name!
Won't it be peachy if we win the game? (Oh, goody!)
Let's try not to injure them,
But fight, fight, fight!
Let's not be rough, though!
Fight, fight, fight!
And do fight fiercely!
Fight, fight, fight!

Read my other post. Pandering to their religious beliefs, which are already radical and off-path, will just encourage and support their idea that everyone should have to adhere to their beliefs.


it's a EXTREMELY minor inconvenience for the very few men who actually use that gym - I don't see school children being forced to pray toward mecca because of this. if you do then you are unnecessarily paranoid.

yeah, that does raise the question...

so, if I've had gender reassignment surgery, I can go in?

or not until the final surgery is complete?

or is there a chromosome test like the Olympics does?

or will my detachable penis allow me to get through (provided I leave it at home)?

What do conservative fundamentalist Muslim girls think of being ogled by the women's field hockey team in the shower?

Read my other post. Pandering to their religious beliefs, which are already radical and off-path, will just encourage and support their idea that everyone should have to adhere to their beliefs.*koff* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy)

Speaking as a man about an act that discriminates against men, it's a private gym, they should be able to do what they want with it.

I think it would be OK to have a woman only time if it were during an hour when the gym would normally be closed. Like if the gym used to be open until 8:00 it can now be open til 9:00 with the last hour being for women only.

it's a EXTREMELY minor inconvenience for the very few men who actually use that gym - I don't see school children being forced to pray toward mecca because of this. if you do then you are unnecessarily paranoid.
It's the peak of a slippery slope. It's all downhill from here.

*koff* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy)

It is a slippery slope, and that was the point. We let the evangelicals wander around unchecked and see where that got us.

"They accommodated us at X, why can't they be accommodated at Y?" It stacks.

It's not just muslim women, though. Other women are allowed in as well.

i understand that. and there are circumstances where its nicer for women to exercise with only other women but i dont see a big reason for the university to go out of their way for that.

so if the women's only hours are taken only by non moslem women, they should rethink their policy.

"Segregation is ok, its only the schools out in the boonies."
Location is irrelevant.
"Segregation is ok, its only one school out in the boonies."
Number is irrelevant.
"Segregation is ok, its only one school out in the boonies once a week."
Amount of time is irrelevant.What are you talking about? Are you alleging I said something similar to the things in your quotation marks?

Honest question:

What if it was a whites-only policy during certain hours, as per the religious beliefs of some group? Would people have the same reaction?

i guess we'll have to wait for such a group to reveal itself at harvard before we decide that one.

What are you talking about? Are you alleging I said something similar to the things in your quotation marks?
Reductio ad absurdum

My example statements were what you implied.

Read my other post. Pandering to their religious beliefs, which are already radical and off-path, will just encourage and support their idea that everyone should have to adhere to their beliefs.Here's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. I find it funny how you're fighting this idea tooth and nail solely on the grounds that the reason its being done is because of religious reasons. I'd take it you wouldn't be hyping on about segregation if in the case of regular women only gyms or regular segregated gyms, so long as it wasn't because of religion.

Reductio ad absurdum

My example statements were what I interpreted (to suit my own twisted agenda).Fixed.

I never claimed anything along the lines of "a school in the boonies". I was, however, talking about how one of many gyms, incidentally the least used (probably because its the furthest away from the center of the Harvard campus), has recently received special hours for women only.

i understand that. and there are circumstances where its nicer for women to exercise with only other women but i dont see a big reason for the university to go out of their way for that.

so if the women's only hours are taken only by non moslem women, they should rethink their policy.Why would the reason matter if there is an inintended positive effect (such as more women working out that would not have if there hadn't been such an offer)?

I'm still not seeing what there is to be paranoid about. A private institution deciding to make more than reasonable accommodations for it's students is not the same as burning all of the books in the library because it offends a minority of the students and it never will come to those extremes. If it did I would protest with you.

It's not as if there aren't plenty of other gyms for the men to choose from during the two hours that one particular gym is women-only.

If it is a slippery slope that leads to things that actually seem like an injustice worth whining about, I'll bring the cheese and we can have a protest.
:fluffle:

It's not any different from the constant accomodations the UK seems to pride itself on (in order to placate the local Muslim population). Or any different really, from the Archbishop's call to adopt sharia law in order to placate Muslims.

Most of us wouldn't dream of accomodating fundamentalist Christians in this way. Why do we feel the need (even on private property) to accomodate Islam in this way?

Here's a poem from iowahawk that captures the idea of the slippery slope that the_pantless_hero is talking about:

1 Whan in Februar, withe hise global warmynge

2 Midst unseasonabyl rain and stormynge

3 Gaia in hyr heat encourages

4 Englande folke to goon pilgrimages.

5 Frome everiches farme and shire

6 Frome London Towne and Lancanshire

7 The pilgryms toward Canterbury wended

8 Wyth fyve weke holiday leave extended

9 In hybryd Prius and Subaru

10 Off the Boughton Bypasse, east on M2.

11 Fouer and Twyntie theye came to seke

12 The Arche-Bishop, wyse and meke

13 Labouryte and hippye, Gaye and Greene

14 Anti-warre and libertyne

15 All sondry folke urbayne and progressyve

16 Vexed by Musselmans aggressyve.

17 Hie and thither to the Arche-Bishop's manse

18 The pilgryms ryde and fynde perchance

19 The hooly Bishop takynge tea

20 Whilste watching himselfe on BBC.

21 Heere was a hooly manne of peace

22 Withe bearyd of snow and wyld brows of fleece

23 Whilhom stoode athwart the Bush crusades

24 Withe peace march papier-mache paraydes.

25 Sayeth the pilgryms to Bishop Rowan,

26 "Father, we do not like howe thynges are goin'.

27 You know we are as Lefte as thee,

28 But of layte have beyn chaunced to see

29 From Edinburgh to London-towne

30 The Musslemans in burnoose gowne

31 Who beat theyr ownselfs with theyr knyves

32 Than goon home and beat theyr wyves

33 And slaye theyr daughtyrs in honour killlynge

34 Howe do we stoppe the bloode fromme spillynge?"

35 The Bishop sipped upon hys tea

36 And sayed, "an open mind must we

37 Keep, for know thee well the Mussel-man

38 Has hys own laws for hys own clan

39 So question not hys Muslim reason

40 And presaerve ye well social cohesion."

41 Sayth the libertine, "'tis well and goode

42 But sharia goes now where nae it should;

43 I liketh bigge buttes and I cannot lye,

44 You othere faelows can't denye,

45 But the council closed my wenching pub,

46 To please the Imams, aye thaere's the rub."

47 Sayeth the Bishop, strokynge his chin,

48 "To the Mosque-man, sexe is sinne

49 So as to staye in his goode-graces

50 Cover well thy wenches' faces

51 And abstain ye Chavs from ribaldry

52 Welcome him to our communitie."

53 "But Father Williams," sayed the Gaye-manne

54 "Though I am but a layman

55 The Mussleman youthes hath smyte me so

56 Whan on streets I saunter wyth my beau."

57 Sayed the Bishop in a curt replye

58 "I am as toolrant as anye oothere guy,

59 But if Mussleman law sayes no packynge fudge,

60 Really nowe, who are we to judge?"

61 Then bespake the Po-Mo artist,

62 "My last skulptyure was hailed as smartest

63 Bye sondry criticks at the Tate

64 Whom called it genius, brillyant, greate

65 A Jesus skulpted out of dunge

66 Earned four starres in the Guardian;

67 But now the same schtick withe Mo-ha-med

68 Has earned a bountye on my hed."

69 Sayed the Bishop, "that's quyte impressyve

70 To crafte a Jesus so transgressyve

71 But to do so with the Muslim Prophet

72 Doomed thy neck to lose whats off it.

73 Thou should have showen mor chivalrie

74 In committynge such a blasphemie."

75 And so it went, the pilgryms all

76 Complaynynge of the Muslim thrall;

77 To eaches same the Bishop lectured

78 About the cultur fabrick textured

79 With rainbow threyds from everie nation

80 With rainbow laws for all situations.

81 "But Father Rowan, we bathyr nae one

82 We onlye want to hav our funne!"

83 "But the Musselman is sure to see

84 Thy funne as Western hegemony.

85 'Tis not Cristian for Cristians to cause

86 The Moor to live by Cristendom's laws

87 Whan he has hise sovereyn culture

88 Crist bade us put ours in sepulture.

89 To be divyne we must first be diverse

90 So cheer thee well, thynges could be wors

91 Sharia is Englishe as tea and scones,

92 So everybody muste get stoned."

93 The pilgryms shuffled for the door

94 To face the rule of the Moor;

95 Poets, Professors, Starbucks workers

96 Donning turbans, veils and burqqas.

97 As they face theyr fynal curtan

98 Of Englande folk, one thynge is certan:

99 Dying by theyr own thousande cuts,

100 The Englande folk are folking nuts.

101 BURMA SHAVE

I'm still not seeing what there is to be paranoid about. A private institution deciding to make more than reasonable accommodations for it's students is not the same as burning all of the books in the library because it offends a minority of the students and it never will come to those extremes. If it did I would protest with you.

It's not as if there aren't plenty of other gyms for the men to choose from during the two hours that one particular gym is women-only.

If it is a slippery slope that leads to things that actually seem like an injustice worth whining about, I'll bring the cheese and we can have a protest.

I'm still not seeing what there is to be paranoid about. A private institution deciding to make more than reasonable accommodations for it's students is not the same as burning all of the books in the library because it offends a minority of the students and it never will come to those extremes. If it did I would protest with you.

It's not as if there aren't plenty of other gyms for the men to choose from during the two hours that one particular gym is women-only.

I've found it to be incredibly difficult to find time to fit a workout into my schedule. And I don't know how big Harvard's campus in particular is, but walking across even my very small undergrad campus would take 10 minutes at the least. Harvard, IIRC, is substantially larger. When you're already crunched for time, this inconvenience could basically mean that a man has to give up his workout. While I agree that this isn't as much of an inconvenience as it could be, I think you're downplaying it a bit.

:fluffle:

inorite?

It's not any different from the constant accomodations the UK seems to pride itself on (in order to placate the local Muslim population). Or any different really, from the Archbishop's call to adopt sharia law in order to placate Muslims.

Most of us wouldn't dream of accomodating fundamentalist Christians in this way. Why do we feel the need (even on private property) to accomodate Islam in this way?

Here's a poem from iowahawk that captures the idea of the slippery slope that the_pantless_hero is talking about:

1 Whan in Februar, withe hise global warmynge

2 Midst unseasonabyl rain and stormynge

3 Gaia in hyr heat encourages

4 Englande folke to goon pilgrimages.

5 Frome everiches farme and shire

6 Frome London Towne and Lancanshire

7 The pilgryms toward Canterbury wended

8 Wyth fyve weke holiday leave extended

9 In hybryd Prius and Subaru

10 Off the Boughton Bypasse, east on M2.

11 Fouer and Twyntie theye came to seke

12 The Arche-Bishop, wyse and meke

13 Labouryte and hippye, Gaye and Greene

14 Anti-warre and libertyne

15 All sondry folke urbayne and progressyve

16 Vexed by Musselmans aggressyve.

17 Hie and thither to the Arche-Bishop's manse

18 The pilgryms ryde and fynde perchance

19 The hooly Bishop takynge tea

20 Whilste watching himselfe on BBC.

21 Heere was a hooly manne of peace

22 Withe bearyd of snow and wyld brows of fleece

23 Whilhom stoode athwart the Bush crusades

24 Withe peace march papier-mache paraydes.

25 Sayeth the pilgryms to Bishop Rowan,

26 "Father, we do not like howe thynges are goin'.

27 You know we are as Lefte as thee,

28 But of layte have beyn chaunced to see

29 From Edinburgh to London-towne

30 The Musslemans in burnoose gowne

31 Who beat theyr ownselfs with theyr knyves

32 Than goon home and beat theyr wyves

33 And slaye theyr daughtyrs in honour killlynge

34 Howe do we stoppe the bloode fromme spillynge?"

35 The Bishop sipped upon hys tea

36 And sayed, "an open mind must we

37 Keep, for know thee well the Mussel-man

38 Has hys own laws for hys own clan

39 So question not hys Muslim reason

40 And presaerve ye well social cohesion."

41 Sayth the libertine, "'tis well and goode

42 But sharia goes now where nae it should;

43 I liketh bigge buttes and I cannot lye,

44 You othere faelows can't denye,

45 But the council closed my wenching pub,

46 To please the Imams, aye thaere's the rub."

47 Sayeth the Bishop, strokynge his chin,

48 "To the Mosque-man, sexe is sinne

49 So as to staye in his goode-graces

50 Cover well thy wenches' faces

51 And abstain ye Chavs from ribaldry

52 Welcome him to our communitie."

53 "But Father Williams," sayed the Gaye-manne

54 "Though I am but a layman

55 The Mussleman youthes hath smyte me so

56 Whan on streets I saunter wyth my beau."

57 Sayed the Bishop in a curt replye

58 "I am as toolrant as anye oothere guy,

59 But if Mussleman law sayes no packynge fudge,

60 Really nowe, who are we to judge?"

61 Then bespake the Po-Mo artist,

62 "My last skulptyure was hailed as smartest

63 Bye sondry criticks at the Tate

64 Whom called it genius, brillyant, greate

65 A Jesus skulpted out of dunge

66 Earned four starres in the Guardian;

67 But now the same schtick withe Mo-ha-med

68 Has earned a bountye on my hed."

69 Sayed the Bishop, "that's quyte impressyve

70 To crafte a Jesus so transgressyve

71 But to do so with the Muslim Prophet

72 Doomed thy neck to lose whats off it.

73 Thou should have showen mor chivalrie

74 In committynge such a blasphemie."

75 And so it went, the pilgryms all

76 Complaynynge of the Muslim thrall;

77 To eaches same the Bishop lectured

78 About the cultur fabrick textured

79 With rainbow threyds from everie nation

80 With rainbow laws for all situations.

81 "But Father Rowan, we bathyr nae one

82 We onlye want to hav our funne!"

83 "But the Musselman is sure to see

84 Thy funne as Western hegemony.

85 'Tis not Cristian for Cristians to cause

86 The Moor to live by Cristendom's laws

87 Whan he has hise sovereyn culture

88 Crist bade us put ours in sepulture.

89 To be divyne we must first be diverse

90 So cheer thee well, thynges could be wors

91 Sharia is Englishe as tea and scones,

92 So everybody muste get stoned."

93 The pilgryms shuffled for the door

94 To face the rule of the Moor;

95 Poets, Professors, Starbucks workers

96 Donning turbans, veils and burqqas.

97 As they face theyr fynal curtan

98 Of Englande folk, one thynge is certan:

99 Dying by theyr own thousande cuts,

100 The Englande folk are folking nuts.

101 BURMA SHAVE

AS I said - if this policy hurt someone I'd be concerned. If it leads to policies that end up hurting someone, I'll protest with you.

There are plenty of non-Muslim women that will love to take advantage of this policy as well so I don't see it as a detriment to anybody. None is being turned away from being able to work out here, just not at this particular gym that is barely used. It will probably make the investment put into that gym worthwhile now.

One that uses 100 percent of the facility rather then a portion of it during that period.

Having seperate locker-room does not deny the use of an entire facility to anyone

Nor does this. They have multiple gyms all across campus. Men have gym access everywhere else. Just like they can access everywhere but the women's lockerroom.

Do make the analogy complete, what if during the same time they had a men's only gym in one of the boonie gyms as well?

Frankly, this is just a modesty issue. And I have no issue with gyms trying to be more inclusive of people who are more modest. I used to have neighbors that had to wear speach clothing in order to swim. Clothing not permitted in most gyms and public pools. I would have no issue with allowing for times when such clothing was permitted or allowing for a singular pool for such purposes among a string of pools.

Religion and culture define our notion of modesty. Deal with it. You accept our culture's definition but ridicule their culture's. In doing so it's not they who are descriminating.

I've found it to be incredibly difficult to find time to fit a workout into my schedule. And I don't know how big Harvard's campus in particular is, but walking across even my very small undergrad campus would take 10 minutes at the least. Harvard, IIRC, is substantially larger. When you're already crunched for time, this inconvenience could basically mean that a man has to give up his workout. While I agree that this isn't as much of an inconvenience as it could be, I think you're downplaying it a bit.It's the one that's furthest out of anyone's way, save for the few people that live near it, though. Any of the other ones would have been an even greater inconvenience.

I've found it to be incredibly difficult to find time to fit a workout into my schedule. And I don't know how big Harvard's campus in particular is, but walking across even my very small undergrad campus would take 10 minutes at the least. Harvard, IIRC, is substantially larger. When you're already crunched for time, this inconvenience could basically mean that a man has to give up his workout. While I agree that this isn't as much of an inconvenience as it could be, I think you're downplaying it a bit.

Well then run to the next gym can be part of the workout - problem solved :P

My campus didn't even have a gym but if there was only one gym there, I'd protest this policy. If there were two, I'd go to the available one.

I'm not downplaying it from my point of view. I think others are getting too worked up over a nothing. Yes there is a minor inconvenience for some, I don't deny that.

It's issues like these that piss off the common American man. Issues like these that make him doubt the great idea that is multiculturalism. Anyone sane will just say, what about America's call for assimilation upon immigration. Don't they know that MAKING themselves stand out and segregating themselves, in the eye of society, from our society is a negative thing for them.

They can work out at home, or they can work out in the gym like a normal person. There are a few muslims in my gym in my college, and they are there during normal operating hours. Pulling shit like this will only increase the feeling of "anti-Islam" that I'm sure they are trying to avoid. It's like saying, the social rules/norms of your country arn't good enough for ME, so I'm gonna have society bend over to do things MY way, the right way.:rolleyes:

If this happend at my school, I'd run through there naked, dry hump them and be like "I SEE YOUR PALE FLABBY BODY THAT HAS EVADED YEARS OF SUNLIGHT AND MONTHS OF GYM TIME!!"

Naked bar!:D

If this happend at my school, I'd run through there naked, dry hump them and be like "I SEE YOUR PALE FLABBY BODY THAT HAS EVADED YEARS OF SUNLIGHT AND MONTHS OF GYM TIME!!"I'm going to have to save this post. It's the single best argument against any "White people are civilized" rhetoric you could ever spout.

It's issues like these that piss off the common American man. Issues like these that make him doubt the great idea that is multiculturalism. Anyone sane will just say, what about America's call for assimilation upon immigration. Don't they know that MAKING themselves stand out and segregating themselves, in the eye of society, from our society is a negative thing for them.

They can work out at home, or they can work out in the gym like a normal person. There are a few muslims in my gym in my college, and they are there during normal operating hours. Pulling shit like this will only increase the feeling of "anti-Islam" that I'm sure they are trying to avoid. It's like saying, the social rules/norms of your country arn't good enough for ME, so I'm gonna have society bend over to do things MY way, the right way.:rolleyes:

If this happend at my school, I'd run through there naked, dry hump them and be like "I SEE YOUR PALE FLABBY BODY THAT HAS EVADED YEARS OF SUNLIGHT AND MONTHS OF GYM TIME!!"

Wow, what an intelligent argument.

Meanwhile, so your argument is "majority wins"? Hmmmm... I think the majority of people in the US recognize that the requirement to wear tops for women is sexist. Certainly you're picketing the mostly white, mostly Christian individuals who still support that sexist and archaic law, no?

Hmmm... perhaps another sexual assault is in order. You could protest by running up and tearing the tops off their wives.

It's issues like these that piss off the common American man. Issues like these that make him doubt the great idea that is multiculturalism. Anyone sane will just say, what about America's call for assimilation upon immigration. Don't they know that MAKING themselves stand out and segregating themselves, in the eye of society, from our society is a negative thing for them.

They can work out at home, or they can work out in the gym like a normal person. There are a few muslims in my gym in my college, and they are there during normal operating hours. Pulling shit like this will only increase the feeling of "anti-Islam" that I'm sure they are trying to avoid. It's like saying, the social rules/norms of your country arn't good enough for ME, so I'm gonna have society bend over to do things MY way, the right way.:rolleyes:

If this happend at my school, I'd run through there naked, dry hump them and be like "I SEE YOUR PALE FLABBY BODY THAT HAS EVADED YEARS OF SUNLIGHT AND MONTHS OF GYM TIME!!"

As a libertarian, I think the school has the right to set internal policies as it sees fit, even if I think their policies are whacked. Let 'em set the women-only hours if they want. Let's drop the immediate assumptions of discriminatory intent that pop up any time someone sets a new policy. Of course, we all know that a "men only" scheduled time slot would result in immediate shrill complaints from NOW, the ACLU, etc. and we'd like to see women and minority groups getting "equal wrongs" with their "equal rights" but that's not gonna happen in our society any time soon.

Frankly, this is just a modesty issue. And I have no issue with gyms trying to be more inclusive of people who are more modest.

Were they excluded before?

This is a comfort issue, not a modesty one. These women want to be able to wear clothing that they believe to be immodest when they exercise because it is more comfortable. It is not impossible for them to wear their modest clothes to their workout, they simply don't want to. So they want men kept out for them to do so.

In other words, they feel that others should be inconvenienced for their convenience.

My sense of modesty means that I often wear more clothing to a workout than I would if I were alone. Should a gym accommodate my wish to wear less clothing by keeping other people out?

I used to have neighbors that had to wear speach clothing in order to swim. Clothing not permitted in most gyms and public pools. I would have no issue with allowing for times when such clothing was permitted or allowing for a singular pool for such purposes among a string of pools.

....another policy which does not deny use of the facilities to others.

Were they excluded before?

This is a comfort issue, not a modesty one. These women want to be able to wear clothing that they believe to be immodest when they exercise because it is more comfortable. It is not impossible for them to wear their modest clothes to their workout, they simply don't want to. So they want men kept out for them to do so.

My sense of modesty means that I often wear more clothing to a workout than I would if I were alone. Should a gym accommodate my wish to wear less clothing by keeping other people out?

Considering the clothes they would have to wear in order to be modest it would likely be dangerous. There is a reason that gyms require proper workout attire.

Again, reasonable exclusion is allowed under current fairness practices. This is mildly inconvenient for men for a couple of hours and includes people who were excluded before.



....another policy which does not deny use of the facilities to others.

Actually, you're incorrect. They couldn't swim with people wearing normal bathings suits.

Again, this is about modesty. And as soon as you endorse one form of modesty requirements that are inconveniencing (I can't just go in the women's bathroom because the men's has a line), then you lose your right to complain about something equally inconvenient in deference to another culture.

When we're so non-sexist, that we have communal bathrooms, we'll have some room to talk. Today, these complaints are hypocrisy.

I'm going to have to save this post. It's the single best argument against any "White people are civilized" rhetoric you could ever spout.
Do so..I also found it quite funny.

BTW, I love how you try to relate anything I say to racism (oh how you leftist love to play the "you're a racist card", even though I've said time and time again that Islam crosses the boundries of nationality, race and religion, and I oppose it on social/religious grounds, not racial as that would be impossible. Buuuutt...I guess that would be too difficult for your brain to understand, and you'd prefer "you're a racist".

Ayaan Hirsi Ali a former Dutch politician that has to live her life under constant protection because she suffers constant death threats from Islam and is in fear of her life, said it best when she said:

Paraphrased:

"The world must understand the criticism of Islam is not to be taken as Racism, but as legitamite criticism of an ideology. One cannot chose his or her race, but they can certainly choose his or her ideas to which they suscribe."

I thought so too, except for the last part which was quite obviously a joke.



My arguement is this:

Anyone sane will just say, what about America's call for assimilation upon immigration. Don't they know that MAKING themselves stand out and segregating themselves, in the eye of society, from our society is a negative thing for them.

Pulling shit like this will only increase the feeling of "anti-Islam" that I'm sure they are trying to avoid. It's like saying, the social rules/norms of your country arn't good enough for ME, so I'm gonna have society bend over to do things MY way, the right way

Oh..and I could care less if women went topless.....???

Good, then get out there and start protesting good man.

And people call you a racist because you are. You've said time and again, blah, blah, blah. Yet, you frequently reference anti-Arab propaganda when you mean anti-Muslim. You'd notice the distinction if attacking Muslims wasn't more important to you than promoting racial equality.

I've found it to be incredibly difficult to find time to fit a workout into my schedule. And I don't know how big Harvard's campus in particular is, but walking across even my very small undergrad campus would take 10 minutes at the least. Harvard, IIRC, is substantially larger. When you're already crunched for time, this inconvenience could basically mean that a man has to give up his workout. While I agree that this isn't as much of an inconvenience as it could be, I think you're downplaying it a bit.

Ah, yes, the horrible inconvenience of having to walk slightly farther across campus in order to walk on a treadmill. ;)

(Sorry, but I couldn't resist pointing that out. :p )

Wow, what an intelligent argument.
I thought so too, except for the last part which was quite obviously a joke.

Meanwhile, so your argument is "majority wins"? Hmmmm... I think the majority of people in the US recognize that the requirement to wear tops for women is sexist. Certainly you're picketing the mostly white, mostly Christian individuals who still support that sexist and archaic law, no?

My arguement is this:

Anyone sane will just say, what about America's call for assimilation upon immigration. Don't they know that MAKING themselves stand out and segregating themselves, in the eye of society, from our society is a negative thing for them.

Pulling shit like this will only increase the feeling of "anti-Islam" that I'm sure they are trying to avoid. It's like saying, the social rules/norms of your country arn't good enough for ME, so I'm gonna have society bend over to do things MY way, the right way

Oh..and I could care less if women went topless.....???

You said the equivalent which implied a school in the boonies in my absurd example. What do you propose "the gym furtherest from the center of the campus" implies?


Apparently I need to repeat what I said, but be clearer because you obviously arn't getting it.

He's getting it. You're using several fallacies, not the least of which is the slippery slope fallacy.

"DEAR GOD, IF WE OFFER A SOLUTION THAT IS VERY INCONVENIENT FOR THEM AND MILDLY INCONVENIENT FOR OTHERS THEN SUDDENLY WE'LL ALL BE WEARING BURKAS."

The problem you've got there is it doesn't actually work that way and no amount of rhetoric is going to make us forget how illogical your claims are.

Fixed.

I never claimed anything along the lines of "a school in the boonies".
You said the equivalent which implied a school in the boonies in my absurd example. What do you propose "the gym furtherest from the center of the campus" implies?

I was, however, talking about how one of many gyms, incidentally the least used (probably because its the furthest away from the center of the Harvard campus), has recently received special hours for women only.
Apparently I need to repeat what I said, but be clearer because you obviously arn't getting it.

BTW, I love how you try to relate anything I say to racism (oh how you leftist love to play the "you're a racist card", even though I've said time and time again that Islam crosses the boundries of nationality, race and religion, and I oppose it on social/religious grounds, not racial as that would be impossible. Buuuutt...I guess that would be too difficult for your brain to understand, and you'd prefer "you're a racist".Did I say you were racist? Ho! No I didn't!
I was pointing out how that kind of behavior is uncivilized and how it contradicts your posting history.
I have no more called you a racist than you said that Rotovia- looks like someone who would sell your organs for crack because he's black.

You said the equivalent which implied a school in the boonies in my absurd example. What do you propose "the gym furtherest from the center of the campus" implies?I don't know, perhaps that its the one that gets used the least because its the one thats furthest out of everyone's way perhaps?
Apparently I need to repeat what I said, but be clearer because you obviously arn't getting it.Woo. Pot, meet kettle...

Considering the clothes they would have to wear in order to be modest it would likely be dangerous. There is a reason that gyms require proper workout attire.

I've seen women in such dress working out a gym that required proper workout attire, so I don't think it's dangerous.

Less comfortable? Perhaps, but so is me wearing long pants and a baggy shirt when I would wear shorts and a sports bra if I were alone.

Again, reasonable exclusion is allowed under current fairness practices. This is mildly inconvenient for men for a couple of hours and includes people who were excluded before.

...except it doesn't. It excludes people where no one was excluded before.

Before:
- No one is excluded. Some women have to wear more clothing to follow their modesty standards.

Now:
- Men are excluded. The women who had to wear more clothing can now wear less.

You are the one arguing for exclusion here.

Actually, you're incorrect. They couldn't swim with people wearing normal bathings suits.

They weren't allowed to do so?

Meanwhile, I was talking about your policy suggestion. Were you suggesting that they have "clothing only" swim times?

Again, this is about modesty. And as soon as you endorse one form of modesty requirements that are inconveniencing (I can't just go in the women's bathroom because the men's has a line), then you lose your right to complain about something equally inconvenient in deference to another culture.

Who says I endorse any of it?

Meanwhile, once again you are comparing denial of use to different facilities. While I don't support either, they are different.

When we're so non-sexist, that we have communal bathrooms, we'll have some room to talk. Today, these complaints are hypocrisy.

I've seen such bathrooms.

But let's explore this line of thinking. You're basically saying, "We already have discrimination, so it's ok to have more." Is that always true?

Ah, yes, the horrible inconvenience of having to walk slightly farther across campus in order to walk on a treadmill. ;)

(Sorry, but I couldn't resist pointing that out. :p )I wanted to do that as well, but held back because of the time issue being a valid one (as opposed to having to actually walk to a work out :rolleyes: :p )... :(

I get it. I'm fine with it. It's a reasonable amount of time a week. If it was a gym class and they demanded that Harvard hire an Authentic Muslim Lady Gym Teacher and that they be taught separately from the rest of the school population - yeah, that is asking too much. I don't really see what the big deal is. I understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere but this seems fair to me.

What if you couldn't have times allowed for certain rooms at a university for certain events. What if the Chess Club protested that they didn't want to be in the same room as the Bash Rocks with Beavers Who Were Recently Forced to Suck on Helium Balloons Club? Is it all communal property and if the two clubs meet, they should be forced to tolerate one another?

Good, then get out there and start protesting good man.
What? At Harvard or that women can't go topless? I lost you here....

Yet, you frequently reference anti-Arab propaganda when you mean anti-Muslim.
Simply not true and I've explained it before but I guess you were more interested in your perverted version of reality than what I said. Let me lay it out for you big man:

Current usage of the term is wider than the version given by Bat Ye'or, with less attention for Franco-Arab relations, and more for immigration and Muslim demographics.

Islam is incompatible with European (western) values, and hostile to the Western world. The West is engaged in some form of war or civilisational conflict with Islam.

Islam seeks to replace European civilisation and values with its own. It envisions a Europe where Islam is the dominant religion, and sharia replaces the European legal tradition.

Western civilisation is explicitly Judeo-Christian, and the Islamic hostility is partly religious.

Muslims make continual demands in order to impose their own values, and concessions inspire fresh demands. Most if not all Muslims have this demanding attitude, since such demands are a part of their religion.
(:eek:Wow, this one seems relevant, does it not?;)

These demands are also intended to place non-Muslims (primarily Jews and Christians) in the status of dhimmi, and most Muslims find that the only appropriate status for them.

These demands should be resisted, but European governments, media and elites consistently fail to do so. They even pre-emptively make concessions to Muslims, including self-censorship. Their attitude is that of dhimmitude - the servile attitude of the weak dhimmi in a Muslim-dominated society. Dhimmitude is seen as effectively an act of treason against Western Civilisation.

Muslim immigration to Europe is a strategy, intended to gain control of Europe, by replacing its non-Muslim population with Muslims - it is not primarily economic in character.

The growth of the Muslim population in Europe by natural increase (high birth rates) is also part of this strategy - "outbreeding the enemy." There are already many more Muslims in Europe than official statistics admit -- with some countries like France and Belgium refusing to even count their minorities -- and within several generations (at least by 2100) they will form a majority. European governments have actively facilitated this strategy by allowing continuous immigration from Muslim countries, which is also tantamount to treason.

Even before they are a majority, Muslims will dominate European politics because of their numbers and the complacent dhimmitude of politicians and elites, who consistently fail to offer any resistance to them.


You'd notice the distinction if attacking Muslims wasn't more important to you than promoting racial equality.
Whaa? My arguements against Islam have nothing to do with racial equality, against for or anything else you can think of.....they are two seperate issues...and unless you believe Islam is a race, in which case you'd be the ignorant one, I can't see how you can tie those together.

You're doing it right here, you're just trying to be sneaky about it.

Yes that kind of behavior IS uncivilized, it was a joke, thank you. If I ever actually did that in real life, than you good unload on my about how uncivilized I am. However, until then....the point is moot.

And again, you're trying to be sneaky and lie. I didn't say he looks liek someone who would sell their organsm for crack because he's black. I said because he looks like a downright thug. If you can't differenciate between a black guy and a thug, then you're the racist one not me.

Btw, how does your arguement hold up considering there wer eother black posters who posted their pictures who did not recieve any the same "organ comment".....surely if it was a black thing it would have applied to them aswell.

You suck at arguing, stop trying to be so sneaky....it's not working.Yeah? Go ahead and prove I called you a racist.

Did I say you were racist? Ho! No I didn't!
I was pointing out how that kind of behavior is uncivilized and how it contradicts your posting history.
I have no more called you a racist than you said that Rotovia- looks like someone who would sell your organs for crack because he's black.
You're doing it right here, you're just trying to be sneaky about it.

Yes that kind of behavior IS uncivilized, it was a joke, thank you. If I ever actually did that in real life, than you good unload on my about how uncivilized I am. However, until then....the point is moot.

And again, you're trying to be sneaky and lie. I didn't say he looks liek someone who would sell their organsm for crack because he's black. I said because he looks like a downright thug. If you can't differenciate between a black guy and a thug, then you're the racist one not me.

Btw, how does your arguement hold up considering there wer eother black posters who posted their pictures who did not recieve any the same "organ comment".....surely if it was a black thing it would have applied to them aswell.

You suck at arguing, stop trying to be so sneaky....it's not working.

I've seen women in such dress working out a gym that required proper workout attire, so I don't think it's dangerous.

Less comfortable? Perhaps, but so is me wearing long pants and a baggy shirt when I would wear shorts and a sports bra if I were alone.

You cannot work out in a dress or similar garment. Any gym that allowed such a thing was being woefully irresponsible. Gym equipment is dangerous and wearing loose flowing clothing GREATLY increases their danger to you and others. What you've "seen" doesn't override the basic safety recommendations for such equipment.



...except it doesn't. It excludes people where no one was excluded before.

Before:
- No one is excluded. Some women have to wear more clothing to follow their modesty standards.

Now:
- Men are excluded. The women who had to wear more clothing can now wear less.

You are the one arguing for exclusion here.

Only if you ignore that women cannot go into gyms wearing that much clothing. Are seriously going to argue that most gyms don't require you to have on proper workout attire? Because if you are we can just stop right here and I'll recognize you don't have the basic knowledge required to discuss this.





They weren't allowed to do so?

Meanwhile, I was talking about your policy suggestion. Were you suggesting that they have "clothing only" swim times?

Not "clothing only". They had to be more covered. Essentially everyone present had to be covered from the neck to mid-thigh. It's not that uncommon actually.



Who says I endorse any of it?

Meanwhile, once again you are comparing denial of use to different facilities. While I don't support either, they are different.

Then get out there and get to bitching, good woman. You won't mind if I follow you into the ladies room at the next meetup, right? I mean, being modest at the cost of even mild inconvenience is plain wrong. If me being in the bathroom at the same time as you bothers you, then tough cookies sister. I'm not going to put up with your sexist mumbo jumbo.


I've seen such bathrooms.

But let's explore this line of thinking. You're basically saying, "We already have discrimination, so it's ok to have more." Is that always true?

Nope. I'm saying that we already accept cultural needs for modesty and that we either accept that not everyone's line is the same or we do away with it altogther. This isn't MORE discrimination. This is simply DIFFERENT discrimination. It's no different than the fact I can take my shirt off in most gyms and you cannot.

Yeah? Go ahead and prove I called you a racist.
Your arguements are trying to...anyway, I don't have to prove shit aside from the fact that you're using false arguementes against me. Which I've done. Thus I'm happy. So I win.


Bis nächste Mal, süßli. ;)

Meanwhile, I was talking about your policy suggestion. Were you suggesting that they have "clothing only" swim times?
Yes, because that implies that there is a "no-clothing only" swim time. And that would be awesome.

You know how Neesika has that thread, "Hey, we're on the same side, you aren't supposed to disagree with me!"?

This post is a great example of a counterpoint to that topic:
It's issues like these that piss off the common American man. Issues like these that make him doubt the great idea that is multiculturalism. Anyone sane will just say, what about America's call for assimilation upon immigration. Don't they know that MAKING themselves stand out and segregating themselves, in the eye of society, from our society is a negative thing for them.

They can work out at home, or they can work out in the gym like a normal person. There are a few muslims in my gym in my college, and they are there during normal operating hours. Pulling shit like this will only increase the feeling of "anti-Islam" that I'm sure they are trying to avoid. It's like saying, the social rules/norms of your country arn't good enough for ME, so I'm gonna have society bend over to do things MY way, the right way.:rolleyes:

If this happend at my school, I'd run through there naked, dry hump them and be like "I SEE YOUR PALE FLABBY BODY THAT HAS EVADED YEARS OF SUNLIGHT AND MONTHS OF GYM TIME!!"
See, here we have a person who is ostensibly on the "same side" as me on this topic. Yet he manages to do so while also being clearly opposite me on pretty much all the core reasoning behind my conclusion.

Racism and sexism suck. They suck if they are being used by some assholes who want to deny certain people access to a gym, and they suck if they are being used to insult Muslim women who happened to do something assholish like ask that certain people be denied access to the gym.

Whaa? My arguements against Islam have nothing to do with racial equality, against for or anything else you can think of.....they are two seperate issues...and unless you believe Islam is a race, in which case you'd be the ignorant one, I can't see how you can tie those together.

I believe Arab is a race.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13450199&postcount=285

Whoops. This post and it's picture say nothing about Islam, whatsoever. You're racist. You're caught. Stop squirming and simply man up. What is so tiresome about your nonsense is that you won't be even remotely honest about your motives.

Nope. I'm saying that we already accept cultural needs for modesty and that we either accept that not everyone's line is the same or we do away with it altogther. This isn't MORE discrimination. This is simply DIFFERENT discrimination. It's no different than the fact I can take my shirt off in most gyms and you cannot.
Of course it's more discrimination. It all adds up. If you discriminate and say that only male persons can remove their shirt at the gym, and then you further discriminate and also say that only female persons can use the gym during certain times, you've got yourself TWO discriminatory practices. If you stopped doing one of those, you'd have less discrimination. Still discrimination, but less of it.

Personally, I'm all for unisex bathrooms. I would vastly, vastly prefer to use the men's room, as a matter of fact, because the women's room always has huge lines to use the toilets, and forget getting to use a sink because everybody's got to reapply their makeup at the mirror. If a man actually wants to spend an extra 15 minutes waiting to pee in the women's room, he's welcome to do so. I won't be in there to notice! :D

And, for the record, "we" don't accept stupid gendered "modesty" bullshit at all. I put up with it because those are the rules and I am forced to follow them, but I don't accept it any more than I would accept racially segregated bathrooms.

I whole-heartidly agree. Women should also be able to remove their shirts whenever they want, where ever they want. END SEXISM!;)
Before you get too excited, I should add that I don't think it's a good idea to have topless people in the gym (as a general rule). I don't mind if somebody takes off their shirt to towel off for a minute, but I think there are some pretty major sanitary issues if people are using the weight machines or whatever while topless.

My gym doesn't allow men to be topless while using the equipment, and I think that's a good call. We have a hard enough time getting everyone to wipe down the hand grips after they use the cross trainers. I'd rather not lay down to bench press and find that some sweaty fool has left it sopping after his workout.

I whole-heartidly agree. Women should also be able to remove their shirts whenever they want, where ever they want. END SEXISM!;)

If a woman wants to bare her breasts in front of me, I will not complain. Unless they're saggy, nasty breasts. I'm all for covering those up. End sexism, except for saggy boobs!

Does that make me a boobist?

Of course it's more discrimination. It all adds up. If you discriminate and say that only male persons can remove their shirt at the gym, and then you further discriminate and also say that only female persons can use the gym during certain times, you've got yourself TWO discriminatory practices. If you stopped doing one of those, you'd have less discrimination. Still discrimination, but less of it.



I whole-heartidly agree. Women should also be able to remove their shirts whenever they want, where ever they want. END SEXISM!;)

You cannot work out in a dress or similar garment. Any gym that allowed such a thing was being woefully irresponsible. Gym equipment is dangerous and wearing loose flowing clothing GREATLY increases their danger to you and others. What you've "seen" doesn't override the basic safety recommendations for such equipment.

These women weren't wearing dresses. They were wearing relatively workout clothing that covered most of their skin and their hair, including long-sleeved shirts and a hijab. Nothing they were wearing interfered with the gym dress code in any way. It was simply more clothing than most gym users chose to wear.

Only if you ignore that women cannot go into gyms wearing that much clothing.

....except they can.

Are seriously going to argue that most gyms don't require you to have on proper workout attire? Because if you are we can just stop right here and I'll recognize you don't have the basic knowledge required to discuss this.

No, I'm pointing out that proper workout attire and the covering of most of the skin and the hair - are not mutually exclusive.

Not "clothing only". They had to be more covered. Essentially everyone present had to be covered from the neck to mid-thigh. It's not that uncommon actually.

So, it's not so much a problem of what they feel they have to wear, but that they cannot look at people wearing less?

Then get out there and get to bitching, good woman. You won't mind if I follow you into the ladies room at the next meetup, right? I mean, being modest at the cost of even mild inconvenience is plain wrong. If me being in the bathroom at the same time as you bothers you, then tough cookies sister. I'm not going to put up with your sexist mumbo jumbo.

No, it probably wouldn't bother me. I already frequent establishments where bathrooms are either unisex or the picture on the door is generally ignored. If you tried to follow me into a stall, I'd have an issue with it, but then I'd have an issue with that if anyone did it.

Nope. I'm saying that we already accept cultural needs for modesty and that we either accept that not everyone's line is the same or we do away with it altogther. This isn't MORE discrimination. This is simply DIFFERENT discrimination. It's no different than the fact I can take my shirt off in most gyms and you cannot.

....and that is also unfair discrimination.

But at least I can still use the gym while you're in there taking your shirt off. These women essentially want to take clothing off and are seeking to block others from using the gym so that they can do so. Imagine a gym that not only allowed me to take their shirts off, but barred women from entering while they were doing so. Would that be ok?

Meanwhile, different discrimination is more discrimination. It is adding to discrimination, rather than removing it. The solution here is not to argue for more polices that institute discrimination, but instead to argue against all such policies.

I actually like this, and not just for reasons of religious accomodation. I'm sure there are plenty of non-Muslim women at Harvard who would like to work out without being ogled by men.

Probably true. But instead of assuming that all males are going to be "oggling" all females, why not simply have a policy that if a guy chooses to leer, harass, or otherwise make an ass of himself, he will be asked to leave?


I think there are probably also quite a few men who, like Ruby City, would welcome the chance to work out without having to chance being seen as weak, pathetic nerds by women at the gym, so I'd be happy to see Harvard institute "men-only" hours as well.

Again, I'd say it would be much better to simply kick out any women who are acting like jerks. If a woman is insulting you or otherwise harassing you, she should be asked to leave. But if you want to work out in a public space, you're going to have to get over the fact that other people will probably see you. You don't get to kick people out just because you think they might be thinking non-nice things about you.

Odds are, they aren't thinking about you at all.


Now, I don't think that Harvard is in any way obligated to cater to its students' insecurities -- religion-based or otherwise -- but if those insecurities are widespread enough and Harvard's inclined to accommodate them, I'd say that on balance it's a good thing.
I really don't see how it's a good thing for me to be denied the use of a gym because somebody else feel insecure. That's like saying that dining halls should stop serving meat because some vegetarians don't like the practice of eating meat.

Of course it's more discrimination. It all adds up. If you discriminate and say that only male persons can remove their shirt at the gym, and then you further discriminate and also say that only female persons can use the gym during certain times, you've got yourself TWO discriminatory practices. If you stopped doing one of those, you'd have less discrimination. Still discrimination, but less of it.

Personally, I'm all for unisex bathrooms. I would vastly, vastly prefer to use the men's room, as a matter of fact, because the women's room always has huge lines to use the toilets, and forget getting to use a sink because everybody's got to reapply their makeup at the mirror. If a man actually wants to spend an extra 15 minutes waiting to pee in the women's room, he's welcome to do so. I won't be in there to notice! :D

And, for the record, "we" don't accept stupid gendered "modesty" bullshit at all. I put up with it because those are the rules and I am forced to follow them, but I don't accept it any more than I would accept racially segregated bathrooms.

Well, at least that's consistent. However, we all must accept that in the US, there is a cultural norm of allowing for minor inconvenience in the interest of modesty. This is just the same thing packaged another way. Frankly, it doesn't bother me in the least. They chose a way to deal with it that is at best mildly inconvenient for some and used to make a huge inconvenience for a group into just a sever inconvenience. No one is being denied access to the gym. Some people have to go to another gym that is freely available to them during specific times. It's no different than if the football team took it over or any other group. It's a group that can only use it to the exclusion of all others, and if being a tiny bit sensitive to that requires a little bending so we don't break, it's no skin.

We're not at war with religion. And as long as we play it that way we play into the fantasies of fanatics. It's the difference between MLK and the black panthers. The black panthers certainly made a difference, but MLK was MUCH more effective.

I actually like this, and not just for reasons of religious accomodation. I'm sure there are plenty of non-Muslim women at Harvard who would like to work out without being ogled by men. I think there are probably also quite a few men who, like Ruby City, would welcome the chance to work out without having to chance being seen as weak, pathetic nerds by women at the gym, so I'd be happy to see Harvard institute "men-only" hours as well. Now, I don't think that Harvard is in any way obligated to cater to its students' insecurities -- religion-based or otherwise -- but if those insecurities are widespread enough and Harvard's inclined to accommodate them, I'd say that on balance it's a good thing.

You know how Neesika has that thread, "Hey, we're on the same side, you aren't supposed to disagree with me!"?

This post is a great example of a counterpoint to that topic:
Couldn't agree more.
I believe Arab is a race.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13450199&postcount=285

Whoops. This post and it's picture say nothing about Islam, whatsoever. You're racist. You're caught. Stop squirming and simply man up. What is so tiresome about your nonsense is that you won't be even remotely honest about your motives.
Sorry, lie is already refuted:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13503694&postcount=121

Yet, you frequently reference anti-Arab propaganda when you mean anti-Muslim.
Simply not true and I've explained it before but I guess you were more interested in your perverted version of reality than what I said. Let me lay it out for you big man:

Current usage of the term is wider than the version given by Bat Ye'or, with less attention for Franco-Arab relations, and more for immigration and Muslim demographics.

Islam is incompatible with European (western) values, and hostile to the Western world. The West is engaged in some form of war or civilisational conflict with Islam.

Islam seeks to replace European civilisation and values with its own. It envisions a Europe where Islam is the dominant religion, and sharia replaces the European legal tradition.

Western civilisation is explicitly Judeo-Christian, and the Islamic hostility is partly religious.

Muslims make continual demands in order to impose their own values, and concessions inspire fresh demands. Most if not all Muslims have this demanding attitude, since such demands are a part of their religion.
(:eek:Wow, this one seems relevant, does it not?;)

These demands are also intended to place non-Muslims (primarily Jews and Christians) in the status of dhimmi, and most Muslims find that the only appropriate status for them.

These demands should be resisted, but European governments, media and elites consistently fail to do so. They even pre-emptively make concessions to Muslims, including self-censorship. Their attitude is that of dhimmitude - the servile attitude of the weak dhimmi in a Muslim-dominated society. Dhimmitude is seen as effectively an act of treason against Western Civilisation.

Muslim immigration to Europe is a strategy, intended to gain control of Europe, by replacing its non-Muslim population with Muslims - it is not primarily economic in character.

The growth of the Muslim population in Europe by natural increase (high birth rates) is also part of this strategy - "outbreeding the enemy." There are already many more Muslims in Europe than official statistics admit -- with some countries like France and Belgium refusing to even count their minorities -- and within several generations (at least by 2100) they will form a majority. European governments have actively facilitated this strategy by allowing continuous immigration from Muslim countries, which is also tantamount to treason.

Even before they are a majority, Muslims will dominate European politics because of their numbers and the complacent dhimmitude of politicians and elites, who consistently fail to offer any resistance to them.

These women weren't wearing dresses. They were wearing relatively workout clothing that covered most of their skin and their hair, including long-sleeved shirts and a hijab. Nothing they were wearing interfered with the gym dress code in any way. It was simply more clothing than most gym users chose to wear.

Then we're not talking about the same women. These women cannot wear women that is revealing of their body at all in front of men according to their cultural beliefs in modesty.

You're arguing from the untenable position that there is just one kind of Muslim. What you saw has little to do with the fact that a large portion of Muslim women have clothing requirements that won't even allow them to be in front of men while wearing pants.

....except they can.

Again, only if you redefine it. You don't get to decide what they can and cannot wear. Are you actually denying that there are women who cannot wear what you're describing and honor their beliefs at the same time?


No, I'm pointing out that proper workout attire and the covering of most of the skin and the hair - are not mutually exclusive.

So, it's not so much a problem of what they feel they have to wear, but that they cannot look at people wearing less?

It's both.


No, it probably wouldn't bother me. I already frequent establishments where bathrooms are either unisex or the picture on the door is generally ignored. If you tried to follow me into a stall, I'd have an issue with it, but then I'd have an issue with that if anyone did it.




....and that is also unfair discrimination.

But at least I can still use the gym while you're in there taking your shirt off. These women essentially want to take clothing off and are seeking to block others from using the gym so that they can do so. Imagine a gym that not only allowed me to take their shirts off, but barred women from entering while they were doing so. Would that be ok?

Meanwhile, different discrimination is more discrimination. It is adding to discrimination, rather than removing it. The solution here is not to argue for more polices that institute discrimination, but instead to argue against all such policies.

The gyms are one big facility, split into seperate buildings. (I work in facilities management, and it's not a subtle distinction. Don't believe I know. Would you like to know what FMS Harvard uses and who set up their system, including phone numbers?) They aren't be denied access to the facilities. They are being denied access to a part of the facilities. This is why a comparison to lockerrooms is completely adequate.

Couldn't agree more.

Sorry, lie is already refuted:

It's not a lie when I demonstrated you doing it. You were complaining about Muslims but put up a picture about Arabs. Deny it all you like, but as you say a picture speaks 1000 words.

We're not at war with religion. And as long as we play it that way we play into the fantasies of fanatics. It's the difference between MLK and the black panthers. The black panthers certainly made a difference, but MLK was MUCH more effective.


Actually there is an arguement to be made that nonviolent protest only works really well when there is the underlying threat of violent protest, but thats a different topic all together.

I read to much Machiavelli.

Actually there is an arguement to be made that nonviolent protest only works really well when there is the underlying threat of violent protest, but thats a different topic all together.

I read to much Machiavelli.

and that's why I always end my protest speeches with "For Pony!"

their religion allows them to excercise?

You have an unfortunate screen name, given the current thread.

Then we're not talking about the same women. These women cannot wear women that is revealing of their body at all in front of men according to their cultural beliefs in modesty.

The clothing wasn't revealing. Not all workout clothing is revealing, you know. These were Muslim women conforming to traditional Muslim modesty requirements.

In fact, a google search brought up multiple sportswear sites that specifically cater to Muslim women who want to maintain this level of modesty.

You're arguing from the untenable position that there is just one kind of Muslim. What you saw has little to do with the fact that a large portion of Muslim women have clothing requirements that won't even allow them to be in front of men while wearing pants.

Not really all that large a portion. Even women who are required to cover their faces are often wearing pants, albeit with a long top over it. While it's certainly possible that the women we are talking about adhere to the standards of modesty you are describing, it is also very unlikely.

Again, only if you redefine it. You don't get to decide what they can and cannot wear. Are you actually denying that there are women who cannot wear what you're describing and honor their beliefs at the same time?

No, but I doubt that such women are the ones we're talking about.

It's both.

Then it's their own problem. I agree that people should not be banned from using a pool because they wear more clothing than others. But they should not have any power to dictate what other people wear while they are there.

If want to wear long-pants to the gym. Does that mean I should bitch that everyone else should be required to do so while I'm there?

The gyms are one big facility, split into seperate buildings. (I work in facilities management, and it's not a subtle distinction. Don't believe I know. Would you like to know what FMS Harvard uses and who set up their system, including phone numbers?) They aren't be denied access to the facilities. They are being denied access to a part of the facilities. This is why a comparison to lockerrooms is completely adequate.

Ah, we've resorted to semantics arguments.

It would be adequate, if there was a men-only gym that was equally convenient to the users.

It would still be sex discrimination, but it would be comparable to locker rooms.

their religion allows them to excercise?

the more you cater to people, the more you are going to have to cater to people.

their religion allows them to excercise?

:rolleyes:

Private colleges shouldn't try to be accommodating to the people who pay them to attend.

the more you cater to people, the more you are going to have to cater to people.

That's why I don't run a catering business, it just becomes a vicious cycle.

It's not a lie when I demonstrated you doing it. You were complaining about Muslims but put up a picture about Arabs. Deny it all you like, but as you say a picture speaks 1000 words.
You can keep repeating your lies, but repitition will not make them true.

Current usage of the term [Eurabia] is wider than the version given by Bat Ye'or, with less attention for Franco-Arab relations, and more for immigration and Muslim demographics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia

Thus that picture was about Islam not Arabs according to the definition of the idea behind Eurabia.

You can keep repeating your lies, but repitition will not make them true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia

Thus that picture was about Islam not Arabs according to the definition of the idea behind Eurabia.

I recognize that more people than you are confused about a religion not being a race, but that doesn't make your claims any more sound. That you use a term that is widespread due to ignorance isn't a defense of your own. I mean, "******" wasn't racist either, it was just like saying black, right? Why would anyone consider it a racist term?

Or saying someone is an "indian giver". Or that you "jewed" someone down. Or that you've been "gyped". Or "****** pile". Or any number of terms that are undoubtedly racist but that people often use without any consideration for such racism.

So keep presenting how people who are too stupid or too ignorant to recognize the difference between Arab and Muslim are so widespread that you feel comfortable inserting yourself into their folds. It won't change that the term is created by racists, for racists and you're a racist who is using it.

What's funny is now you're using an entirely racist argument to prove you're not racist. And when I say, I hate niggers, I don't mean I hate black people, see. I mean I people who throw popcorn at the screen and murder each other and refuse to learn and whatnot. It's less about African American relations and more about them being a problem.

I thought I heard them all-what is a "****** pile" ?

Wow...nothing you said there had anything to do with me being right about the definition of Eurabia. You usually argue semi-well, what's going on? Let me say it again because it seems like you missed it:

You can keep repeating your lies, but repitition will not make them true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia

Thus that picture was about Islam not Arabs according to the definition of the idea behind Eurabia.

Terms are defined by usage. You've demonstrated that enough people are ignorant as to the difference between Muslims and Arabs that they accept a usage that conflates them as correct. That such ignorance is widespread isn't a defense of it. It's still racism and you're still a racist for supporting such an obvious confusion of race and culture.

You know what I am going to start a gym with nudism is allowed. Also, the only thing that would not be coed are the bathrooms and locker rooms. Though to state registered sex offenders and other such misdemanors will not be allowed in.

*SNIP*
Wow...nothing you said there had anything to do with me being right about the definition of Eurabia. You usually argue semi-well, what's going on? Let me say it again because it seems like you missed it:

You can keep repeating your lies, but repitition will not make them true.

Current usage of the term [Eurabia] is wider than the version given by Bat Ye'or, with less attention for Franco-Arab relations, and more for immigration and Muslim demographics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia

Thus that picture was about Islam not Arabs according to the definition of the idea behind Eurabia.

Of course it's more discrimination. It all adds up. If you discriminate and say that only male persons can remove their shirt at the gym, and then you further discriminate and also say that only female persons can use the gym during certain times, you've got yourself TWO discriminatory practices. If you stopped doing one of those, you'd have less discrimination. Still discrimination, but less of it.

Personally, I'm all for unisex bathrooms. I would vastly, vastly prefer to use the men's room, as a matter of fact, because the women's room always has huge lines to use the toilets, and forget getting to use a sink because everybody's got to reapply their makeup at the mirror. If a man actually wants to spend an extra 15 minutes waiting to pee in the women's room, he's welcome to do so. I won't be in there to notice! :D

And, for the record, "we" don't accept stupid gendered "modesty" bullshit at all. I put up with it because those are the rules and I am forced to follow them, but I don't accept it any more than I would accept racially segregated bathrooms.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aktion/action-smiley-033.gif

You know what I am going to start a gym with nudism is allowed. Also, the only thing that would not be coed are the bathrooms and locker rooms. Though to state registered sex offenders and other such misdemanors will not be allowed in.

Working out naked would not be good. There are body parts that need more support than that when you're jumping around. Also, there's the sweat-on-the-equipment issue that already leads some gyms to require all users to wear shirts.

Terms are defined by usage.
Exactly...and this is what backs my arguement up. The TERM Eurabia is USED to discuss the growing socio-economic-political issues of ISLAM in Europe.

How are you not seeing this?

I thought I heard them all-what is a "****** pile" ?

A move that the Niglet (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/RhynoD/untitled-2.jpg) uses.

I've no problem with it per se, as long as they drop the fees for all the people inconvenienced by this act. Either that or offer them free visits to the nearest other gym that they can use during that time.
Some male gym goers might be only able to use the facilities during those times allocated to women-only. It's an unfair burden on them for the Harvard governing body to restrict their times without offering something in return.

However, we all must accept that in the US, there is a cultural norm of allowing for minor inconvenience in the interest of modesty.

Not "modesty" as defined by whoever, no. A certain particular conception of modesty, under which this does not fit.

Only in America can something taking place in a single gym in a private university can turn into a rant on how the country is being turned into t3h calif8. And apparently catering to the needs of its demographics is a crime too. Which of course the usual suspects then latch on to and continue their personal bandwagon drivel.

But hey, this is the same country where enough people believed that insinuating Barack Obama is a Muslim would actually damage his political chances for the Presidency, go figure.

:rolleyes:

Probably true. But instead of assuming that all males are going to be "oggling" all females, why not simply have a policy that if a guy chooses to leer, harass, or otherwise make an ass of himself, he will be asked to leave?

Again, I'd say it would be much better to simply kick out any women who are acting like jerks. If a woman is insulting you or otherwise harassing you, she should be asked to leave. But if you want to work out in a public space, you're going to have to get over the fact that other people will probably see you. You don't get to kick people out just because you think they might be thinking non-nice things about you.

Odds are, they aren't thinking about you at all.

I really don't see how it's a good thing for me to be denied the use of a gym because somebody else feel insecure. That's like saying that dining halls should stop serving meat because some vegetarians don't like the practice of eating meat.

I don't strongly disagree on any particular point. I actually had an objection when I started typing this post, but halfway through I realized it was based on a bad assumption.

:)

Your arguements are trying to...anyway, I don't have to prove shit aside from the fact that you're using false arguementes against me. Which I've done. Thus I'm happy. So I win.I had an ex that claimed she won every time she lost as well :p
Bis nächste Mal, süßli. ;)What's a "süßli"?

I had an ex that claimed she won every time she lost as well :p
What's a "süßli"?

not a clue, and I speak the language. that could mean one of a couple things:

1. he can't spell
2. he's a idiot
3. he's combining languages
4. he's making stuff up
5. I actually don't know the word, in which case refer to number 2

not a clue, and I speak the language.
So do I. I'm patronizing him for attempting to insult me in one of my mothertongues and getting it wrong. ;)

What's a "süßli"?Maybe he means Muesli?

Maybe he means Muesli?Could be. But then again the S and M keys are very far apart on a keyboard, and even then "Müsli" gets capitalized, since it is a noun.

Only in America can something taking place in a single gym in a private university can turn into a rant on how the country is being turned into t3h calif8. And apparently catering to the needs of its demographics is a crime too. Which of course the usual suspects then latch on to and continue their personal bandwagon drivel.
Reverse discrimination still has the word discrimination in it. Here's a question, why don't they have closed off areas of the gym? That way the 'Muslim' women can exercise without being seen (because of course one has to go to the gym to exercise) and they arn't closing off the entire gym.

Could be. But then again the S and M keys are very far apart on a keyboard, and even then "Müsli" gets capitalized, since it is a noun.
Also, I didn't realize the Greek beta was still being used as a character.

Also, I didn't realize the Greek beta was still being used as a character.SZ.

Exactly...and this is what backs my arguement up. The TERM Eurabia is USED to discuss the growing socio-economic-political issues of ISLAM in Europe.

How are you not seeing this?

I see it. It is used by people too ignorant to notice that Arab=/=Muslim. That A LOT of people do it, doesn't defend the usage. That's what is funny about this. You're SO racist that an argument that "it's not racist anymore because a whole lot of people use Arab to mean Muslim, so it's okay" makes sense to you. To anyone paying attention, the fact that equates Arab and Muslim is enough to make the racism inherent, just like words that equate Jews with cheap or any other of a variety of racist nonsense. So keeping making the argument you're making for as long as you like. You're doing an excellent job of proving me correct.

"I don't know why people get upset with me for calling other people gay. It just means "stupid or lame". That the term came into that usage because people generally believed being gay was a bad thing doesn't mean I'm a bigot for using it." Except it does. This term is no different. You're a racist. That your particular form of racism has become so popular is a problem, not a defense.

It's not even as if it's about (or should be about) Islam anyway. As I said in a previous post, plenty of gyms and pools have women only hours and it's completely acceptable. As soon as a someone opens a women's only hour and says it might encourage Muslim women as well, it's suddenly discrimination and proof we're all about to live under the Caliphate. Had Harvard replaced 'Muslim women' with 'women who want to exercise separately', this wouldn't have made the news, and we'd be debating something else.
Those are discriminatory too but the reason for this creates an entire new problem in addition to reverse discrimination.

Only in America can something taking place in a single gym in a private university can turn into a rant on how the country is being turned into t3h calif8. And apparently catering to the needs of its demographics is a crime too. Which of course the usual suspects then latch on to and continue their personal bandwagon drivel.
It's not even as if it's about (or should be about) Islam anyway. As I said in a previous post, plenty of gyms and pools have women only hours and it's completely acceptable. As soon as a someone opens a women's only hour and says it might encourage Muslim women as well, it's suddenly discrimination and proof we're all about to live under the Caliphate. Had Harvard replaced 'Muslim women' with 'women who want to exercise separately', this wouldn't have made the news, and we'd be debating something else.

Those are discriminatory too but the reason for this creates an entire new problem in addition to reverse discrimination.
How is it an any way a 'new' problem when we've had women-only hours for any number of years already?

It's not even as if it's about (or should be about) Islam anyway. As I said in a previous post, plenty of gyms and pools have women only hours and it's completely acceptable.

Perhaps it is acceptable to some people, or even many people. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to everybody.

As soon as a someone opens a women's only hour and says it might encourage Muslim women as well, it's suddenly discrimination and proof we're all about to live under the Caliphate. Had Harvard replaced 'Muslim women' with 'women who want to exercise separately', this wouldn't have made the news, and we'd be debating something else.
While I agree that the media treatment of this issue would DEFINITELY have been different without the Muslim element, and while it's possible nobody would have brought the issue to NSG in that case, neither of those things changes the fact that I would still object to Harvard instituting this change even if it was non-Muslim women requesting it.

It's still sexism, whether or not Islam is involved. I object to sexism.

Perhaps it is acceptable to some people, or even many people. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to everybody.

While I agree that the media treatment of this issue would DEFINITELY have been different without the Muslim element, and while it's possible nobody would have brought the issue to NSG in that case, neither of those things changes the fact that I would still object to Harvard instituting this change even if it was non-Muslim women requesting it.

It's still sexism, whether or not Islam is involved. I object to sexism.

Well, we all see how "separate but equal" women's collegiate sports are.

I'm all for the one bathroom, one shower, one gym for everyone.

I flat out say no

Im sick of all this politically correct BS about giving every minority its own 'special powers' above and beyond what the rest of us have.

The only time when I want to be forced out of a gym for women to pwn it is when the hot girl leave and the fat unattractive women enter

I flat out say no

Im sick of all this politically correct BS about giving every minority its own 'special powers' above and beyond what the rest of us have.

The only time when I want to be forced out of a gym for women to pwn it is when the hot girl leave and the fat unattractive women enterYou have a rather silly notion of "above and beyond"...

not a clue, and I speak the language. that could mean one of a couple things:

1. he can't spell
2. he's a idiot
3. he's combining languages
4. he's making stuff up
5. I actually don't know the word, in which case refer to number 2

A lot of people here know a lot of languages. I feel left out, as my favorite non-English language is American Sign Language. I can't sign at people over the blagoblog!

Perhaps it is acceptable to some people, or even many people. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to everybody.

While I agree that the media treatment of this issue would DEFINITELY have been different without the Muslim element, and while it's possible nobody would have brought the issue to NSG in that case, neither of those things changes the fact that I would still object to Harvard instituting this change even if it was non-Muslim women requesting it.

It's still sexism, whether or not Islam is involved. I object to sexism.
Which is a fair position to have. I'm not disputing that, although I don't necessarily agree with it (or disagree, I'm fairly ambivalent). I was making a general observation about the way the media tends to report issues relating to Islam, and how it gets interpreted by some people, rather then having a debate over whether we should have women-only hours or not. I seriously doubt whether this issue would have been raised by the media had Harvard decided to have women only hours and not mentioned Islam, although I see why people would still oppose it regardless.

Damn, I missed this one. Yet another chance to the first one to wonder why Muslims can't assimilate into Western society has gone by the wayside.

But then again, maybe they're right. Maybe we should segregate the whole population into male and female. We should insist on segregated schools, swimming pools, bars, nightclubs, baseball games...

I wonder when Harvard will install the foot baths and ban pork products?

Excellent job of demonstrating the point. "Dear God, the EBIL MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO DESTROY OUR CULTURE!!!" I know it made me laugh. Thanks for that.

Well, we shouldn't change our culture to accommodate their religious sense of modesty or sin.

If we do that, then it's appropriate to accomodate the religious sense of modest and sin promulgated by fundamentalist Christians as well.

I'm sure you would go along with that, right?

Well, we shouldn't change our culture to accommodate their religious sense of modesty or sin.

If we do that, then it's appropriate to accomodate the religious sense of modest and sin promulgated by fundamentalist Christians as well.

I'm sure you would go along with that, right?

Except so many of our laws have been and still are based of the Christian concept of "sin", and Im not jus talking about the obvious ones every culture has.

Well, we shouldn't change our culture to accommodate their religious sense of modesty or sin.

If we do that, then it's appropriate to accomodate the religious sense of modest and sin promulgated by fundamentalist Christians as well.

I'm sure you would go along with that, right?

No, if we accommodate one set of religious beliefs, we shouldn't discriminate about which one it is. We need Christmas trees on the town square, along with the Creche. We need to have the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Or maybe we're a secular society and need none of that.

It's not even as if it's about (or should be about) Islam anyway. As I said in a previous post, plenty of gyms and pools have women only hours and it's completely acceptable. As soon as a someone opens a women's only hour and says it might encourage Muslim women as well, it's suddenly discrimination and proof we're all about to live under the Caliphate. Had Harvard replaced 'Muslim women' with 'women who want to exercise separately', this wouldn't have made the news, and we'd be debating something else.

Damn, I missed this one. Yet another chance to the first one to wonder why Muslims can't assimilate into Western society has gone by the wayside.

But then again, maybe they're right. Maybe we should segregate the whole population into male and female. We should insist on segregated schools, swimming pools, bars, nightclubs, baseball games...

I wonder when Harvard will install the foot baths and ban pork products?

Excellent job of demonstrating the point. "Dear God, the EBIL MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO DESTROY OUR CULTURE!!!" I know it made me laugh. Thanks for that.

Damn, I missed this one. Yet another chance to the first one to wonder why Muslims can't assimilate into Western society has gone by the wayside.

But then again, maybe they're right. Maybe we should segregate the whole population into male and female. We should insist on segregated schools, swimming pools, bars, nightclubs, baseball games...

I wonder when Harvard will install the foot baths and ban pork products?

Remember, if all muslims = teh ebil who want to make us conform to them, than...


All marines = rapists


We already owned you on this point. Hang your head in shame.

Excellent job of demonstrating the point. "Dear God, the EBIL MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO DESTROY OUR CULTURE!!!" I know it made me laugh. Thanks for that.

They are? I need to get my shotgun.

I take it my sister can take her top off at the gym or have her nipples showing? I mean, she shouldn't have to accomodate YOUR sense of modesty.



Lets see a picture of your sister before we answer that one;)


Sorry Joc, you walked into that one. You should have seen it coming from a mile away.

...I take it my sister can take her top off at the gym or have her nipples showing? I mean, she shouldn't have to accomodate YOUR sense of modesty.

I'll make that decision after I've had a chance to check her out.

I'll make that decision after I've had a chance to check her out.

tsk tsk already beat you to the punch my friend:p

No, if we accommodate one set of religious beliefs, we shouldn't discriminate about which one it is. We need Christmas trees on the town square, along with the Creche. We need to have the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Or maybe we're a secular society and need none of that.

Good thing they are talking about a cultural sense of modesty, which is why their views on modesty vary as much of that of Christians or Atheists, or any other "group".

I take it my sister can take her top off at the gym or have her nipples showing? I mean, she shouldn't have to accomodate YOUR sense of modesty.

Well, we shouldn't change our culture to accommodate their religious sense of modesty or sin.

If we do that, then it's appropriate to accomodate the religious sense of modest and sin promulgated by fundamentalist Christians as well.

I'm sure you would go along with that, right?

It's not religious. It's cultural. Plenty of US Muslims have a sense of modesty that would be considered "usual". Plenty of Christians from other cultures have a completely different sense of modesty than found in the US. And I've met Christians in the US who feel exactly the way the individuals who requested this feel about wearing pants in front of men. It's not religious. That we associate their modesty with their culture is our problem, not theirs.

I take it my sister can take her top off at the gym or have her nipples showing? I mean, she shouldn't have to accomodate (sic) YOUR sense of modesty.

Why should I care? Unless she's ugly, of course.

But then there's the practical reasons why she shouldn't.
I wear a shirt at the gym to keep from sweating up the equipment. I think it also feels better than lying on the plastic equipment.

But the sauna is a different matter...

Yes- but are all of the posts out of order for you as well?

Yeah, its a Jolt thing.

RhynoDD;13506570']I think it's more for everyone's benefit, so we don't have to look at people that look like]this[/url] with no shirt on, or like this[/url] with no pants on.

you monster! You blinded me, aweuoh woet aos peak properly oeiaw posting w ehoaa all asufn wfunny alhhha hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Also, you realize that the fact that this cultural modesty hasn't resulted in the slippery slope all of you are whining about is evidence against you, yes?

Thats only because we have brave Culture Warriors like Bill O'riely, Sean Hannity, Michael "Savage", Rush Limbaugh, New Mitanni, and Myrm out there fighting against it.


Look, the fact of the matter is, this isnt a big deal. In fact, its not even a little deal. The real issue is that girls of all stripes feel uncomfrotable in certain settings around guys because theyre going to get oogled. And you can say "Punish the harasser!" all you want, but there is nothing illegal, not should there be, with checking out a girls boobs. And unless you want to make that illegal, girls will get oogled, and some will feel uncomfortable.

Other places do this all the time. The only reason this is a big deal to anyone was because some of the women who want it happen to be Muslim.

tsk tsk already beat you to the punch my friend:p

Yes- but are all of the posts out of order for you as well?

I take it my sister can take her top off at the gym or have her nipples showing? I mean, she shouldn't have to accomodate YOUR sense of modesty.

I think it's more for everyone's benefit, so we don't have to look at people that look like this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/163179719_2252290e92.jpg) with no shirt on, or like this (http://thewickedpinto.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/fat-guy-2.jpg) with no pants on.

Why should I care? Unless she's ugly, of course.

But then there's the practical reasons why she shouldn't.
I wear a shirt at the gym to keep from sweating up the equipment. I think it also feels better than lying on the plastic equipment.

But the sauna is a different matter...

I can show my nipples without taking off my shirt. You put a well-endowed girl in a tank and have her work out and she's gonna be showing something.

Also, you realize that the fact that this cultural modesty hasn't resulted in the slippery slope all of you are whining about is evidence against you, yes?

Other places do this all the time. The only reason this is a big deal to anyone was because some of the women who want it happen to be Muslim.
Not even that, I didn't see any evidence from the link provided that there were any Muslim women demanding anything of Harvard. From what I can tell, this was at the initative of Harvard acting on its own accord. A subtle but important difference, I feel.

Actually, it's in their religion not to expose themselves to men.

Christians are supposed to be modest too. But no one cries "Zomg teh ebil Christians!!!" (except me ;)) when this kind of stuff gets done because of them.

Frankly, girls of all stripes feel uncomfortable being gawked at.

Not even that, I didn't see any evidence from the link provided that there were any Muslim women demanding anything of Harvard. From what I can tell, this was at the initative of Harvard acting on its own accord. A subtle but important difference, I feel.

A sublte but VERY important difference. *rereads article* Holy crap youre right.

Actually, it's in their religion not to expose themselves to men.
Then you'll be able to explain to me why I've seen and know Muslim women who have had no trouble wearing 'western' clothing with no headscarves.

Actually, it's in their religion not to expose themselves to men.

Actually, it's in their religion that everyone should be "modest."

How that's interpreted varies greatly between (and within) cultures.

It's not religious. It's cultural. Plenty of US Muslims have a sense of modesty that would be considered "usual". Plenty of Christians from other cultures have a completely different sense of modesty than found in the US. And I've met Christians in the US who feel exactly the way the individuals who requested this feel about wearing pants in front of men. It's not religious. That we associate their modesty with their culture is our problem, not theirs.

Actually, it's in their religion not to expose themselves to men.

I can show my nipples without taking off my shirt. You put a well-endowed girl in a tank and have her work out and she's gonna be showing something.

Also, you realize that the fact that this cultural modesty hasn't resulted in the slippery slope all of you are whining about is evidence against you, yes?
I guess it didn't quite sink in... I don't care what your sister wears or what she shows when she is at the gym. But we're not talking about my demands or my acquiescence to those demands.

so people are still bitching about a private university that is doing what it can to accommodate the people who pay them to attend? when you have a client that gives you a ton of money, do you normally brush them off? I see dismal failures in your future businesses if so.

I see. So if the Catholic Church bought Harvard (they could afford it easily), and said that everyone who was currently attending had to convert to Catholicism or leave immediately no matter what hardship that might entail to their education, you would be ok with that?

how does that in any way equate to what I said about accommodating your clients?

this 'sky is falling' routine is sillyness

so people are still bitching about a private university that is doing what it can to accommodate the people who pay them to attend? when you have a client that gives you a ton of money, do you normally brush them off? I see dismal failures in your future businesses if so.

I see. So if the Catholic Church bought Harvard (they could afford it easily), and said that everyone who was currently attending had to convert to Catholicism or leave immediately no matter what hardship that might entail to their education, you would be ok with that?

I guess it didn't quite sink in... I don't care what your sister wears or what she shows when she is at the gym. But we're not talking about my demands or my acquiescence to those demands.

No, what we're talking about is cultural modesty beliefs and how you only seem to bitch about them when they're Muslim. If this was just Harvard doing this for the hell of it, you wouldn't be here whining. You be in some other "ebil Muslim" thread whining. You've not shown the first way this will result in them taking us over or any other slope you're complaining about. Put up or shut up.

I see. So if the Catholic Church bought Harvard (they could afford it easily), and said that everyone who was currently attending had to convert to Catholicism or leave immediately no matter what hardship that might entail to their education, you would be ok with that?

Yup. Actually. That's why it's a private university.

Yup. Actually. That's why it's a private university.

They've done the same thing at George Mason University, a public university.

But that might be because some investors in Dubai paid the school 1 billion dollars in an endowment.

They've done the same thing at George Mason University, a public university.

But that might be because some investors in Dubai paid the school 1 billion dollars in an endowment.

Dear God, we're practically living in mosque. Someone save us!! Won't someone please think of the children. PLEASE!!

Or, you know, it's just a gym and you're blowing it just a tad out of proportion. Who knows? Just a thought.

Oh, I'm not getting this from Jihad Watch. I get it straight from the campus.

It's just that this sort of thing takes place at public institutions as well. That's all I'm saying.

you were originally saying every student was going to be forced to change to a specific religion

I don't see this being the case at this public university or at the private university

Dear God, we're practically living in mosque. Someone save us!! Won't someone please think of the children. PLEASE!!

Or, you know, it's just a gym and you're blowing it just a tad out of proportion. Who knows? Just a thought.

Actually, GMU is converting all of their bathrooms to Muslim standards, including footbaths. They are putting up a mosque, and several buildings are going to get an architectural workover to comply with the Islamic standards suggested by the Dubai investors.

Actually, GMU is converting all of their bathrooms to Muslim standards, including footbaths. They are putting up a mosque, and several buildings are going to get an architectural workover to comply with the Islamic standards suggested by the Dubai investors.

You know you shouldn't get your news from Jihad Watch. Besides the fact they aren't using public funds to do it. So what's the hubbub, bub. No one is being left out. We're not paying for it. They're making SOME of the modifications you suggest and they're footing the bill. U of I has all kinds of churches on campus. All kinds of Christian groups. As long as I'm not paying for them, I'm totally cool with it. Why shouldn't I be?

You know you shouldn't get your news from Jihad Watch. Besides the fact they aren't using public funds to do it. So what's the hubbub, bub. No one is being left out. We're not paying for it. They're making SOME of the modifications you suggest and they're footing the bill. U of I has all kinds of churches on campus. All kinds of Christian groups. As long as I'm not paying for them, I'm totally cool with it. Why shouldn't I be?

Oh, I'm not getting this from Jihad Watch. I get it straight from the campus.

It's just that this sort of thing takes place at public institutions as well. That's all I'm saying.

I had an ex that claimed she won every time she lost as well :p
She's probably always right. As am I. ;)

What's a "süßli"?
It works. It's like....the diminutive of little cutie-patootie....it's not Hochdeutsch.
http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/guide/contexts/german.html

"a tendency to stick the coy diminutive -li onto the end of nouns"

Actually, when in use, non-Muslims are not allowed in the footbath areas or bathrooms. Because the prayer area is right there.

Let me guess, a friend of a friend told you all about it, right? So you can't actually support your claims. As I said, two threads, two rants, no evidence.

Oh, I'm not getting this from Jihad Watch. I get it straight from the campus.

It's just that this sort of thing takes place at public institutions as well. That's all I'm saying.

You're not even talking about the same sort of thing. One is more inclusive, because it simply expands the facilities and denies no one anything, and the other is denying men access for a short period. It's not even remotely related other than it being the "evil muslims" who actually didn't request it.

You're not even talking about the same sort of thing. One is more inclusive, because it simply expands the facilities and denies no one anything, and the other is denying men access for a short period. It's not even remotely related other than it being the "evil muslims" who actually didn't request it.

Actually, when in use, non-Muslims are not allowed in the footbath areas or bathrooms. Because the prayer area is right there.

Maybe he means Muesli?
Nope.
not a clue, and I speak the language. that could mean one of a couple things:

1. he can't spell
2. he's a idiot
3. he's combining languages
4. he's making stuff up
5. I actually don't know the word, in which case refer to number 2
:D Bah it's not German. Es ist nicht auf Hochdeutsch.
So do I. I'm patronizing him for attempting to insult me in one of my mothertongues and getting it wrong. ;)
"wrong is relative."....;)



In this case hahaha

No, what we're talking about is cultural modesty beliefs and how you only seem to bitch about them when they're Muslim. If this was just Harvard doing this for the hell of it, you wouldn't be here whining. You be in some other "ebil Muslim" thread whining. You've not shown the first way this will result in them taking us over or any other slope you're complaining about. Put up or shut up.
You're reading way more into it than there is. I stated in my first post that I missed an opportunity to point out how Muslims refuse to assimilate into Western society. That we acquiesce in the matter only reinforces the process. That we allow them to use religion as an excuse is no excuse, either.

Do Sikhs get to carry their knives through metal detectors? Why not, it's part of the religion. Do some tribes of Indians get to use peyote? Isn't that part of their religion? Bad example -- it's not permitted in public places, though.

If it were just modesty, there's still no excuse. Any number of people are too shy to be seen in a swimsuit, leotard, or bicycle shorts. Personally, I won't be caught dead in a Speedo...

You're reading way more into it than there is. I stated in my first post that I missed an opportunity to point out how Muslims refuse to assimilate into Western society. That we acquiesce in the matter only reinforces the process. That we allow them to use religion as an excuse is no excuse, either.

Do Sikhs get to carry their knives through metal detectors? Why not, it's part of the religion. Do some tribes of Indians get to use peyote? Isn't that part of their religion? Bad example -- it's not permitted in public places, though.

The knives present a risk. This doesn't. Regardless you fail. This is cultural. And, yes, natives should be allowed to use peyote. So should everyone. Which is how this works to since any women may use this gym, not just Muslims. I do agree there should be something similar for men, but I don't mind such a division as long as we support the idea of modesty between the sexes, and we do. Frankly, you don't make any ground by saying "sure, WE can divide up the sexes for modesty, but you can't, you dirty Muslims."

It's pretty funny that you're saying we're under attack by Muslims and I'm reading too much into it.


If it were just modesty, there's still no excuse. Any number of people are too shy to be seen in a swimsuit, leotard, or bicycle shorts. Personally, I won't be caught dead in a Speedo...

And? They should allow for people to have women's only gyms and men's only gyms. In fact, they happen all over the place now.

And? They should allow for people to have women's only gyms and men's only gyms. In fact, they happen all over the place now.
No problem there, pal. Let's just be honest about the reason we want to segregate. If it's because of personal modesty, fine. If it's because my religion requires it, not fine.

She's probably always right. As am I. ;)Not really. Declaring victory is often a sure sign that you've been soundly defeated and you're hoping no one will notice.

It works. It's like....the diminutive of little cutie-patootie....it's not Hochdeutsch.
http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/guide/contexts/german.htmlFunnily enough, even the Swiss capitalize their German nouns.

:D Bah it's not German. Es ist nicht auf Hochdeutsch.Swiss German is still German, even if it isn't High German.

"wrong is relative."....;)



In this case hahahaInterestingly enough, its still wrong. ;)

Well technically yeah....but it's quite different...and you can't tell someone they spell something wrong in Swiss because there is no "right" way to spell in Swiss-German. As long as it's understood, it's understood.

Well technically yeah....but it's quite different...and you can't tell someone they spell something wrong in Swiss because there is no "right" way to spell in Swiss-German. As long as it's understood, it's understood.Actually, there is a right way to spell in Swiss-German. It's called "Schriftdeutsch" in Switzerland and refers to standard German, though there is the exception that the ß generally gets replaced by a double s. Even if there was such freedom in spelling, nouns would still be capitalized, which was my point to begin with.

Actually, there is a right way to spell in Swiss-German. It's called "Schriftdeutsch" in Switzerland and refers to standard German, though there is the exception that the ß generally gets replaced by a double s. Even if there was such freedom in spelling, nouns would still be capitalized, which was my point to begin with.
No that's not how it works. There is standard German which is used by the teachers, in politics and in much of the media. However, when writing online, in SMS or in non-formal writing (for instance not a homework essay), the writing is in Swiss-German..which has no correct way of writing. You write as you pronounce and it's just understood. There are literally tons of different ways of writing the same thing, depending on where you are in Switzerland.

However I will concede the point of capialization. That was just me being lazy. Didn't know you were arguing that.

Well, we all see how "separate but equal" women's collegiate sports are.

I'm all for the one bathroom, one shower, one gym for everyone.
Personally, I'd rather simply have weight classes for most sports, just like with boxing. I prefer to see people play well, instead of simply seeing players selected for size advantage.

Which is a fair position to have. I'm not disputing that, although I don't necessarily agree with it (or disagree, I'm fairly ambivalent). I was making a general observation about the way the media tends to report issues relating to Islam, and how it gets interpreted by some people, rather then having a debate over whether we should have women-only hours or not. I seriously doubt whether this issue would have been raised by the media had Harvard decided to have women only hours and not mentioned Islam, although I see why people would still oppose it regardless.
I certainly agree with you on that.

I can't count the number of times some Christian group has strong-armed through a dress code or a "modesty policy" and there's nary a peep in the media.

Hilariously, my own high school actually had a Christian group try to pass a rule requiring female students to wear skirts, as pants are "immodest" (but only when women wear them). I was extremely proud of my fellow students, particularly the group of guys who came to school in miniskirts and stockings for an entire week as part of a protest. :D

The fact that I enjoy a well-turned male ankle had nothing to do with my approval, of course.

Not even that, I didn't see any evidence from the link provided that there were any Muslim women demanding anything of Harvard. From what I can tell, this was at the initative of Harvard acting on its own accord. A subtle but important difference, I feel.

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.

Looks like you missed something. Requested, not demanded, but it certainly isn't something Harvard did all on its own.

Harvard has enough money that they could just BUILD A NEW GYM if its this important to the Islamic, or fat, or skinny, or blonde, or whatever women they have special gym times. While it might not bother other people it is unfair to do as they are doing. Whatever happened to the days where people could accommodate themselves and do things while/how they were convenient for thier needs? Now they have to impose upon other people because political correctness dictates that you can't figure these kind of things out for yourself.

Harvard has enough money that they could just BUILD A NEW GYM if its this important to the Islamic, or fat, or skinny, or blonde, or whatever women they have special gym times. While it might not bother other people it is unfair to do as they are doing. Whatever happened to the days where people could accommodate themselves and do things while/how they were convenient for thier needs? Now they have to impose upon other people because political correctness dictates that you can't figure these kind of things out for yourself.If it was my university, I'd rather they save the money by using one of the many available.

Harvard has enough money that they could just BUILD A NEW GYM if its this important to the Islamic, or fat, or skinny, or blonde, or whatever women they have special gym times. While it might not bother other people it is unfair to do as they are doing. Whatever happened to the days where people could accommodate themselves and do things while/how they were convenient for thier needs? Now they have to impose upon other people because political correctness dictates that you can't figure these kind of things out for yourself.

Folks now have to be pigeon-holed together, even if they have different beliefs.
Political correctness is really just a fancy filing system, to organise large numbers of people.

Political correctness and spurious ideas of fairness aside: when I was in college, I rather liked the idea that I didn't have to participate in sports and group exercises with men, if I didn't want to. I always thought that equal rights was about choice - I could take P.E. with the men If I wanted to and if I didn't want to, that choice was available to me as well - oh, and similar choices would be available to men.

This PC nonsense bears considerable responsibility for depriving us of choices.

A sublte but VERY important difference. *rereads article* Holy crap youre right.
And then there's reading and comprehending...
From the 6th and 9th paragraphs, we can see that it was indeed a group of Muslim women that wanted the special hours to accommodate their religious beliefs.

"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."

...

"The special hours allow the Muslim women, who adhere to traditional dress codes by covering their hair and most of their skin while in public, to dress more appropriately for exercising, said Susan Marine, director of the women's center."

It's very interesting that a group of six can get any action at all from a University.

Political correctness and spurious ideas of fairness aside: when I was in college, I rather liked the idea that I didn't have to participate in sports and group exercises with men, if I didn't want to. I always thought that equal rights was about choice - I could take P.E. with the men If I wanted to and if I didn't want to, that choice was available to me as well - oh, and similar choices would be available to men.

This PC nonsense bears considerable responsibility for depriving us of choices.

(a) We're not talking about P.E. Classes. No one is making them go to the gym or participate in any sports or group exercises. If this were a required class of some sort, it would be a different story.

(b) There is no similar choice for men here, now is there?

(c) Once upon a time, a lot of white people rather liked the idea of having their own water fountains, swimming pools etc. A white person who wanted to could likely use the designated black water fountains or swim in their pools if they wanted to. I guess that pesky anti-segregation movement deprived them of choices, too?

Another thing I caught as I was looking back over the article (and Myrr just quoted it):

"The special hours allow the Muslim women, who adhere to traditional dress codes by covering their hair and most of their skin while in public, to dress more appropriately for exercising, said Susan Marine, director of the women's center."

No mention of being unable to wear pants. I wonder why Jocabia is so convinced that the particular modesty standard these women are trying to meet included that requirement.

inclusion or discrimination? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/harvard_women_s_hours)

In an effort to accommodate female Muslim students who follow strict dress codes that do not allow them to wear "appropriate" gym attire around men, Harvard has decided to designate their gym(s) as "women-only" for a few hours out of the week.

So what do you think, NSG? Is it creating a more equal and positive environment or discriminating? Or both? Or pancakes?

Its terrible!

What would I have to look at? :p

If Harvard isn't a public university then it's not really a big deal.

However, I don't think it's a good precedent to start giving special hours to everyone that wants them.

Muslim women can A) dress modestly even at the gym (though it might be less than comfortable) B) work out in the presence of males C) go to a private gym. There's probably plenty of other alternatives as well.

I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion though. Christians have been able to push their values into dress codes in public schools (in the US), and yet I don't see people making 16 page threads on it.

Please, no one's rights are being violated through women's only hours, in fact, many women would no doubt enjoy the time.

It's not a question of whether they would enjoy the time! People enjoy doing stuff all the time, that doesn't mean that what they are doing is good or legal.

If men want to work out during those hours and they are not allowed to, this is discriminatory, and should not be allowed (I don't know the legal responsibility of Harvard in this case, but morally this is wrong).

you monster! You blinded me, aweuoh woet aos peak properly oeiaw posting w ehoaa all asufn wfunny alhhha hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I'm not sure the bad grammar and spelling was absolutely necessary. Then again, the pictures weren't absolutely necessary either.

RhynoDD;13516084']I'm not sure the bad grammar and spelling was absolutely necessary. Then again, the pictures weren't absolutely necessary either.

This (http://www.toxicjunction.com/pictures/pic/3/P1268-1.jpg) is probably not necessary as well, but I wouldn't know.

I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion though. Christians have been able to push their values into dress codes in public schools (in the US), and yet I don't see people making 16 page threads on it.
Because they didn't do it last week :rolleyes:

This (http://www.toxicjunction.com/pictures/pic/3/P1268-1.jpg) is probably not necessary as well, but I wouldn't know.

Hot girls (http://bikini.hotbloggirls.com/images/3bikini_girls.jpg) are never unnecessary.