York university dean orders accommodation of male student who won't work with women

156 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Fortunate, I reread your statement carefully and I am going to say what I think you mean. I could definitely be wrong.

This is called mirroring and it is supposed to confirm that the listener (me) understands what they are being told. I will repeat in my own words what I think you were saying. Then you can correct me if I misunderstood any part or the whole.

 1) The university is in the wrong because they didn't investigate the situation well enough. For that reason, in this particular case, the professor was correct to refuse the student's request.

 2) If the university had investigated properly and the man's request had been found to be legitimate, then the university's decision to allow him not to join the group would have been correct.

 3) The university's decision would be correct,( letting him avoid the group), not for his sake, but because the majority of people would be better off not having to work with him.

4) In cases like this, when an individual is refusing to associate with certain people, a group of Jewish lesbian aboriginals for example, it serves the greater good to accommodate the greasy wheel student instead of forcing the greasy wheel student to work with the group.

Is that a reasonably fair and complete description of your opinion?

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

Fortunate, I reread your statement carefully and I am going to say what I think you mean. I could definitely be wrong.

This is called mirroring and it is supposed to confirm that the listener (me) understands what they are being told. I will repeat in my own words what I think you were saying. Then you can correct me if I misunderstood any part or the whole.

 1) The university is in the wrong because they didn't investigate the situation well enough. For that reason, in this particular case, the professor was correct to refuse the student's request.

 2) If the university had investigated properly and the man's request had been found to be legitimate, then the university's decision to allow him not to join the group would have been correct.

 3) The university's decision would be correct,( letting him avoid the group), not for his sake, but because the majority of people would be better off not having to work with him.

4) In cases like this, when an individual is refusing to associate with certain people, a group of Jewish lesbian aboriginals for example, it serves the greater good to accommodate the greasy wheel student instead of forcing the greasy wheel student to work with the group.

Is that a reasonably fair and complete description of your opinion?

 

Pondering, I in no way, shape or form can believe that you are even attempting to be serious.   

 

I do not require my post to be parsed, either with or without line by line quoting, it does seem that you have an axe to grind here, and I do not plan to accomodate you at all.    

I will, however, if that student's request been real, and had the university decided he would just have to take  his lumps and go f2f with female students, let you be the guinea pig who gets to be his f2f.    

 

If you had piece quoted my statement, you would have also acknowledged my comment was towards the person who put out a pretend scenario, so he got a pretend reply.    

However, if you think that the best case solution for dealing with mysogynists is to force young women to spend time with them, I think you miss the point of my post entirely.   You did understand that what he was looking for was to complete the course solo, independent study, rather than doing any f2f with anyone?   Greasy wheel meaning he could finish it up in isolation, so that his biases and attitude would not be inflicted on other people.   

I see no problem with sending someone like that into isolation so that others do not have to suffer his prejudices.   Others who want to take the class should not have to sit with or interact anyone with the sole intention of making them uncomfortable or shameful just for being born female.     I have no interest in making the majority suffer for the actions of a few, or even just one.   

6079_Smith_W

@ fortunate

I do get your argument (and don't mind that you express it).

But I disagree that it affects no one.  This is a case of someone wanting an exemption on sexist grounds, and unless the university is simply going to throw the door open and say that group work is NOT a requirement (and that I could also be accommodated if I wanted to do my course work while sitting in the bar with a beer in hand) then this amounts to the university making itself the vehicle of someone's prejudice.

It might not strictly be a rights argument, but I can see how that would be disturbing for students and staff alike who have a problem with discrimination.

And it might lay the foundation for further and more concrete discrimination down the road, if this is allowed on the basis that (technically anyway) no one is being affected here.

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
I do not require my post to be parsed, either with or without line by line quoting, it does seem that you have an axe to grind here, and I do not plan to accomodate you at all.

It is a formal conflict resolution technique to repeat what someone said in your own words to verify that it was correctly understood. (It was mentioned in a rabble reactions thread on getting along.) 

That gives the speaker, you, the chance to correct the listener.  The listener, me, doesn't get to respond until the speaker judges that the listener correctly parsed the speaker's message which indicates genuine understanding of the speaker's message.

When the speaker says okay, yes, you understood me correctly, then the listener becomes the speaker and gets to respond with their own thoughts.

The listener doesn't get to express themselves until after the speaker agrees that the listener understood.

So in our case, as you indicated I still didn't understand correctly, I  would have to keep trying until I correctly expressed your views as judged by you.  I wouldn't get to give my opinion on what you said until you agree that I understood you.

I'm not going to do that now because I'm not staying.

This site let you down.  From many of the things you've said, after being here for five years, I don't think progressives have walked the talk with you. They haven't shared progressive philosophy which you could have then applied to planning your industry in a much more progressive fashion.

That you said this about occupy:

fortunate wrote:
I am not a fan of the Occupy claims, mostly because I work for a living, and can't spend weeks at a time sitting around debating how other people who also work have it so easy.  

Pasted from <http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostitution-and-right-to-defend-it-0?page=6>

.....without a serious reply illustrates that the people on this site have no respect for you.  You fulfil a role.  You are a cause not a person who can be politically informed, debated with.  I have more respect for you than they do because I actually read what you say and challenge you instead of patting you on the head and taking jabs at your opponents for you.  Maybe it's because I am more like you than I am like them.  If they were genuinely progressive people and they were your friends they wouldn't attack you for your views, they would share theirs so you could learn and be a part of the progressive community instead of a cause.

I have more respect for you than I do them. This site is a playground for faux-progressives to bask in mutual appreciation of their brilliant repartee. They have no intention of actually communicating with anyone outside their circle including you.

In any case, I'm gone, accept their support for your cause, have fun, just don't mistake these people for your friends because they aren't. Most of them are not being at all honest about what is coming down the line legally and you need to be prepared. (Unionist is being honest, not sure who else)

fortunate

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ fortunate

I do get your argument (and don't mind that you express it).

But I disagree that it affects no one.  This is a case of someone wanting an exemption on sexist grounds, and unless the university is simply going to throw the door open and say that group work is NOT a requirement (and that I could also be accommodated if I wanted to do my course work while sitting in the bar with a beer in hand) then this amounts to the university making itself the vehicle of someone's prejudice.

It might not strictly be a rights argument, but I can see how that would be disturbing for students and staff alike who have a problem with discrimination.

And it might lay the foundation for further and more concrete discrimination down the road, if this is allowed on the basis that (technically anyway) no one is being affected here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am glad that i am not required to explain the argument to you, and I agree that it does affect people, the decision to do or not do.  Is there one decision that does more harm than good?   probably.    Life is filled with compromises that make no one happy.   

In this situation, the best solution for any university that has no alternatives to the course requirement is tell someone who wants them to change it 'just for them, for their own personal reasons (cloaked in pretend religion, remember)"  is to tell them the course is not available for them to take.    And isn't that going to violate some other code or rule of the university, that you can't deny access based on religious grounds?    

In this situation, if I am remembering how it plays out, there is a no contact version of the course, online, or is that not the case?   The online version is done with no f2f?      So there was a fairly simple option for the student, and any student who had legitimate reasoning to avoid coed f2f.  

And if there really was a legit religious rationale for this student'd request, would the university now be on the hook for discriminating against their religious beliefs for refusing the request?     And if the student was a muslim female, who believes in her faith and believes that she cannot do coed activities, is this going to be the exception to that rule?    

 

to me the solution was pretty obvious:   don't allow the exception and advise the student to choose another course for their completion.    I see no reason to cater to anyone's private belief system, in the grounds of higher education, they will just have to suck it up, or go to a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Alternative college, where they can complete their studies and not have any pesky non-religious new ideas clutter up their brains.     

fortunate

Pondering, what you are doing isn't really trying to understand, you are trying to reimagine what i actually posted in some way to discredit or disturb or embarrass me, possibly?  Not sure what, but I certainly do understand the communication techniques you are attempting to use to do that.    

Your idea of communicating, to me, is simply that everyone has to agree with the things that you post.   I can't agree, because i know some of those things are patently untrue, and other assumptions are based on falsified information.     One cannot let that stand if one is to have real communication.    

It isn't necessary to rewrite what someone wrote,  in other words.   You are rewriting the words in order to muddy, not clarify, as nothing that you wrote was what was said.   So how am  i to take that?  Conflict resolution?   What is the conflict supposed to be?    You posted a couple of lines asking others to join you in telling me that my comments had no validity and no place here.     

Are there some rules of conduct and thought that haven't been posted somewhere?   No independent thinking allowed?  Because it seems like when you read it, see it, it upsets you that someone out there in the internet world disagrees with your POV and you can't simply let that go.    

Pondering, I think you mean well, but when you say 'these' people don't know what is coming down the road, so what?   neither do you, although you seem to want others to think you do.   I think all of us have a very good idea of the possibilities, but we are also realistic enough to understand that we do not know what the government might do.   We assume and predict, and discuss, that is all anyone can do at this point.  To pretend otherwise, or have the idea that anyone knows for sure, is unrealistic.    

 

 

NDPP

Are Reasonable Accomodations Reasonable?  -  by Len Rudner

http://www.cija.ca/cooperation/are-reasonable-accommodations-reasonable/

"...Having been a beneficiary of religious accommodation I tend to look on it as a positive process..."

6079_Smith_W

@ fortunate

This case could be taken in all sorts of theoretical ways. It has also been taken to the theory that the law is to blame and needs to be changed although there has been no complaint and no legal process whatsoever.

Sure the law says that religious belief so far as this is concerned isn't bound by official dogma. Even so, What actually did happen was that a student made a sexist request in private, claiming a religious reason. He had no official opinion to back up (so until that female Muslim student shows up and makes a request, she is theoretical as well). And when he was told no by a teacher who was distressed at the implications for the school, the student complied and thanked him.

We could tie this up in all kinds of knots over things which which have not happened. And while I think some of those possibilities are worth considering, I think what is more important is that this bad decision came down to money, fear and stupidity - and the willingness to forget consideration for women and the reputation of their instution  (in that they undid an existing settlement without any investigation). It is being roundly mocked as stupid, some legal opinions notwithstanding.

I don't think that stupid decision should be given more importance than it deserves.

Had it been a more weighty request, what would be the problem with going to a negotiated settlement, or even to a tribunal? I think the issue - sexist discrimination in a university - is is worth really consideration, and important enough that it shouldn't come down to guesswork, and making a bad decision just to demonstrate that you're in charge.

 

 

 

 

pookie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ fortunate

This case could be taken in all sorts of theoretical ways. It has also been taken to the theory that the law is to blame and needs to be changed although there has been no complaint and no legal process whatsoever.

Sure the law says that religious belief so far as this is concerned isn't bound by official dogma. Even so, What actually did happen was that a student made a sexist request in private, claiming a religious reason. He had no official opinion to back up (so until that female Muslim student shows up and makes a request, she is theoretical as well). And when he was told no by a teacher who was distressed at the implications for the school, the student complied and thanked him.

We could tie this up in all kinds of knots over things which which have not happened. And while I think some of those possibilities are worth considering, I think what is more important is that this bad decision came down to money, fear and stupidity - and the willingness to forget consideration for women and the reputation of their instution  (in that they undid an existing settlement without any investigation). It is being roundly mocked as stupid, some legal opinions notwithstanding.

I don't think that stupid decision should be given more importance than it deserves.

Had it been a more weighty request, what would be the problem with going to a negotiated settlement, or even to a tribunal? I think the issue - sexist discrimination in a university - is is worth really consideration, and important enough that it shouldn't come down to guesswork, and making a bad decision just to demonstrate that you're in charge.

 

The bolded portions of your post are simply inconsistent.

And we don't need to get this issue adjudicated to know that.  The law is the law and - as I illustrated with quotes from the Supreme Court - it is perfectly clear on this point.

Additionally, the fact that the student complied with the refusal does not mean that the initial request was insincere (which is sort of what I get you to be saying).

abnormal

NDPP wrote:

Are Reasonable Accomodations Reasonable?  -  by Len Rudner

http://www.cija.ca/cooperation/are-reasonable-accommodations-reasonable/

"...Having been a beneficiary of religious accommodation I tend to look on it as a positive process..."

Have to say I do like the final paragraph:

Quote:
Funnily enough, back in the early 70s, I was in martial arts class and asked the Sensei not to assign me a female sparring partner. Mind you, my reasons were different: I simply could not bring myself to hit a woman. The Sensei said that he could not comply because it was a small class and it was important for the women to learn how to defend themselves against much larger opponents. That seemed reasonable and I left the class. Reasonable people will act reasonably if you give them a chance to do so.

I wonder what would have happened if the instructor in the aikido class that's been discussed had simply dismissed himself for part of the class and put the female student in charge?  After all, she's on the verge of getting her black belt so it wouldn't be a stretch.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

@ pookie

Actually it's not inconsistent.

Thing is, a simple finding that religious requests can be valid doesn't mean that principle is going to trump everything else when it is applied in relation to everyghing else. There are plenty of situations where people have valid religious grounds which are not enough for them to get what they want.

And that finding is itself something that was only established when the law was applied and tested.

Again - when and if something comes up it should be tested. These principles are important enough that they deserve that consideration. If the law fails then look at re-evaluating it. But justice that depends on a rigged game is no justice at all.

 

 

 

quizzical

what justice are you talking about? i don't get what justice and what "rigged game" you mean?

Unionist

Unfortunately, Smith, your last few posts are so unspecific and indirect and I find myself agreeing - then saying "hang on, what was that?" - then saying "oh, ok, I guess" - etc.

For example, I took you to be saying that an appeal to religious belief is "weightier" if backed up by some guy in a bishop's mitre or some silly alleged book of god or allah - hence I agree with pookie on that legal point, it's utterly irrelevant. But then I re-read, and I realize I'm not sure what you're saying at all.

And I agree with quizzical. I really don't get what you're talking about.

But the feeling I get from your posts is one I staunchly agree with - that anyone who comes up with any reason to negate gender equality should be told, "I'm sorry, no". At least, I think that's what you're saying...

 

6079_Smith_W

No... a religious argument MIGHT have more weight if a complainant felt serious enough about it to proceed, or refuse to comply.

And perhaps that is misjudging a person's convictions and not a strict reading of that ruling, but in practical terms, that is precisely what it is.

This incident was settled amicably before the school administration made its decision - a decision that was itself built on sand. It is not a criminal case. To my understanding, if the complainant doesn't want to proceed, it doesn't proceed.

Also, the assumption that a religious concern will automatically lead to a certain outcome leaves out the concern of sexist discrimination, and separation of powers. which may not strictly be rights issues in this case, but in principle are of equal concern. 

They must be at least equal if there is talk of making them superior to religious rights.

So any talk of fait accompli needs to include both sides. And the "rigged game" comment? Simply that this theoretical talk of what WILL happen and why, and what needs to be changed to make sure that doesn't happen both ignores the fact that these laws get weighed and applied, hopefully in a way that makes sense.

There is no legal process here at all, so any talk of what is wrong is premature.

Again, in the case here in Saskatoon, there was a complaint, negotiation, and very nearly a deal that would have settled the matter -  before our council decided to act like boneheads and break it off.

I'd say the issues raised by the York case, should they ever come to an actual tribunal, would require even more careful consideration. I don't see that happening by leaping to conclusions about what might happen. And I wouldn't want to see those assumptions lead to trying to build a legal box to prevent that consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unionist

Ok. I think I get you know. We shouldn't "strengthen" any laws until they have clearly been found to be wanting, in real-live cases (rather than ones that end up getting dropped or settled amicably). And you're not saying that a person's religious convictions are "weightier" if backed up by some organized establishment or book - rather, if the person sticks to their guns in demanding accommodation. Hope that's right - and if so, I think we could avoid some of the above posts because there's no huge dispute on these points.

 

6079_Smith_W

Shouldn't run the risk of fucking up the law (or handcuffing the courts) until it is found to be broken, is more my concern.

I don't like it when Stephen Harper does it, and I feel the same even in cases where it might seem to be in favour of issues I support.

And sticking to their guns? Not the only measure, of course (after all, even with the equivalent of a Papal Bull I don't think this should have necessarily been allowed). My point is that for all this weighing of religious concerns, the equally important (at least) implication for women's rights and separation of church and state isn't given equal weight.

Why? because so far there's very little of substance to consider at all, because the student has complied, despite the decision the school made, which so far has come to nothing.

I think that other side of the equation would get a bit more consideration if there was a serious prospect of this landing before a human rights tribunal.

 

 

 

Paladin1

I'm quite surprised at the story of the Aikido student being told she could not train with another student.  By the instructors allowing the male student to choose not to train with the female student they are in essence contributing to her being less prepared to defend herself if she were to be attacked.   At my school we had two students start dating. Sure enough they had a bad break up and brought it to the dojo. The guy made a scene and told the insutructor he didn't want to train with the female student. He was refunded and told to leave until he decided he was able to train with every student in the school. 

It's also a pain in the ass to juggle when it comes to sparing and practicing.

abnormal

Paladin1 wrote:

I'm quite surprised at the story of the Aikido student being told she could not train with another student.  By the instructors allowing the male student to choose not to train with the female student they are in essence contributing to her being less prepared to defend herself if she were to be attacked.   At my school we had two students start dating. Sure enough they had a bad break up and brought it to the dojo. The guy made a scene and told the insutructor he didn't want to train with the female student. He was refunded and told to leave until he decided he was able to train with every student in the school. 

It's also a pain in the ass to juggle when it comes to sparing and practicing.

Way back when I started dating one of the brown belts in my club - no biggie when things were going well but, when things came apart it wasn't quite as pleasant, at least at a personal level.  But we both kept it completely out of the dojo.  BTW, it was never nasty.  Just a "we're not together" moment.

abnormal

And then we have this gentleman who wanted to be excused from attending class because "he's shy".  Seems he signed up for a "Women and Gender Studies" course but wanted to be excused from class because he was the only male (not sure what he expected).

When the prof refused he complained to the Human Rights Commission who turned him down.

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2014/02/05/u_of_t_student_l...

No idea why he didn't just drop the class early on and find something else.

 

pookie

Good Gawd.

Bacchus

abnormal wrote:

And then we have this gentleman who wanted to be excused from attending class because "he's shy".  Seems he signed up for a "Women and Gender Studies" course but wanted to be excused from class because he was the only male (not sure what he expected).

When the prof refused he complained to the Human Rights Commission who turned him down.

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2014/02/05/u_of_t_student_l...

No idea why he didn't just drop the class early on and find something else.

 

Heh, I took a woman studies course at York in 86 and became the only guy in it after 2 weeks. It was a tad uncomfortable but funny with Johanna Stuckey as the Prof

 

Unionist

Interesting, Bacchus, because my religion requires me to be the only guy in an all-women setting whenever possible.

 

Bacchus

LOL you wouldnt have enjoyed this one quite so much. It consisted of listing the various civilizations in history, why they were bad because the men ruled, concluding that men were scum, then all of them looking to me for my opinion and me having to apologize for all men.

 

Funny thing was, it wasnt Prof Stuckey doing that, it was the women in the class, many of whom were perfect sterotypes of man haters. Though I got a few dates from the other women secretly sorry for my plight, not that it really bothered me. It was a helpful addition to my ancient and medieval history studies and gave me a fresh view on looking at things

fortunate

Bacchus wrote:

LOL you wouldnt have enjoyed this one quite so much. It consisted of listing the various civilizations in history, why they were bad because the men ruled, concluding that men were scum, then all of them looking to me for my opinion and me having to apologize for all men.

 

Funny thing was, it wasnt Prof Stuckey doing that, it was the women in the class, many of whom were perfect sterotypes of man haters. Though I got a few dates from the other women secretly sorry for my plight, not that it really bothered me. It was a helpful addition to my ancient and medieval history studies and gave me a fresh view on looking at things

 

 

It sounds like it would be a good partner with ancient and medieval history studies, especially at that time.   And studying that it makes you appreciate too how difficult it must have been for any female royal to hold onto the top seat in most countries during certain times.    

cco

Ontario university defends decision to expel non-Muslim from Muslims-only class

Unionist

cco wrote:
Ontario university defends decision to expel non-Muslim from Muslims-only class

This is about a college, and a course, which trains religious preachers. Who gives a shit whether they exclude anyone or not, or on what basis? I would expect no less than discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, colour, you name it. That's what religion is all about.

The real question is: How in "God"'s name (pardon my language) do programs like this get public funding? They should be funded by their own "faith" communities, or fall by the wayside (preferably the latter).

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Who gives a shit whether they exclude anyone or not, or on what basis?

Because as a public (and publicly-funded) institution, it should be open to all who are interested.

That's still a valid question, despite the validity of your second point.

 

 

cco

CBSA allowed religious travellers to demand not to be served by women

Quote:

The officer said she and her colleagues — whose job involves screening passengers for entry into Canada after they arrive on international flights — were told before their shift not to switch work stations with other officers without first asking a supervisor.

"The reason given was that there were five individuals coming in who had requested only to be served by male officers," said the CBSA officer in an exclusive interview with CBC's Nil Koksal.

When CBSA officers on shift that night asked their managers why the group's request was being accommodated, they were told the men were not allowed to have contact with women for religious reasons.

"Everybody is upset that this request was even entertained by the CBSA," she said. "People are saying 'What is next? If white supremacists come through, do we move all non-white officers from the line?'"

"The nature of the request is offensive to me as a woman," she said. "You are a guest in my country. What do you mean you don't want to deal with me because I'm a woman? We are considered law enforcement officers. I can't imagine any police force entertaining something like that."

shartal@rogers.com

Should a woman have the right to ask to be frisked at a jail or an airport by a woman? Many women are very uncomfortable if men touch them.

cco

Interviewed, not searched. As far as I know if the customs process extends to a strip search you have the same right to request a same-gender search as you do at the security checkpoint. These men didn't want to even talk to a woman while displaying their passports. I don't think a woman would get a women-only lane at passport control unless religion were somehow involved.

shartal@rogers.com

frisking with a wand is not a strip search

cco

We're not talking about that either (that's more of an airport security thing, not for arriving international passengers unless they're connecting). We're talking about passport control, where they look at your paperwork and visa and decide whether or not to admit you. Physical body searches at customs are, I believe (I've never been sent to that level of customs scrutiny, but if it applies to CATSA I'm not sure why it wouldn't apply 200 meters away in the same airport), same-gender. The agent in question spoke of being told not to switch her lane station. Searches happen in a back room, not the passport control area.

shartal@rogers.com

your answer avoids the question. My question is what do you think is acceptable refusals?

Pondering

Echoing cco, some how discrimination against women is tolerated when it would not be tolerated against particular races or sexual orientations.

Should they also have the right to demand straight white customs officials or is it only women they should be allowed to exclude?

It is often said there is no hierarchy of rights but I beg to differ. Religious freedom ends where human rights begin.

cco

What do I think is an acceptable refusal?

Well, if a man robs a bank, he doesn't get to choose to only be arrested by male officers, even though getting arrested can be quite a physical encounter. He only gets that prerogative when being strip-searched at the jail. (For now.) I think that's reasonable.

The function of CBSA is much closer to that of a cop than a CATSA officer -- indeed, in many ways they have even greater discretionary power. They can search you without a warrant or any legal justification whatsoever, they can refuse you entry arbitrarily, they can seize your goods, and in practice they can levy customs or waive them on a whim. Foreign nationals entering Canada on visas have very few rights at the border -- and Canada is hardly alone in this.

Joyce Murray just said on CBC that this was a "reasonable" accomodation and "an issue of respect for multiculturalism", because multiculturalism means facilitating the misogyny and religious insanity of foreign tourists. Sorry, guys, but if you're looking for a country that will ensure you'll never have to so much as look at a woman's face, Saudi Arabia seems like a better choice.

Bacchus

Actually cco, the men have no choice in who strip searches them or is present. Women, however, do have such a choice

KeyStone

Outrage because one male student asked to be treated like a long distance student for a single assignment because of religions beliefs. Meanwhile, there's like 5000 gyms that say 'no men allowed'.

Unionist

KeyStone wrote:

Outrage because one male student asked to be treated like a long distance student for a single assignment because of religions beliefs. Meanwhile, there's like 5000 gyms that say 'no men allowed'.

Sorry you haven't been able to gain entry to them. You must have a lot of time on your hands.

 

Pondering

There are male only bathhouses, go to one of them. There are a good reasons for women only gyms. Many women have been sexually assaulted and if you include flashing and groping the majority of women have experienced male aggression. Then there is the unrelenting focus on our bodies. Gyms, like golf courses, (when they are private) are allowed to segregate by sex. The gym Curves exists for women who want to go to the gym but are intimidated by knowing they are being judged. No such gym exists for men because there is no demand for them not because they aren't permitted.

A university is a public institutution. In an academic setting and/or a labour setting interfering in a woman's ability to do her work is discrimination. Just like you can't decide you don't want to work with someone based on race you can't decide based on sex or sexual orientation either. Lots of religions are against homosexuality too.

This was not even a religious accomodation as the religion in question does not prevent men from working with women.

This is the feminist forum not the men's rights forum. If you are here to be educated on or defend women's rights that's great. If you are here to defend men's rights it's not the right place.

Unionist

Well said, Pondering!

Unionist

dp

KeyStone

Ah, I see.

So, it's alright for private businesses to treat all members of a particular group as if they're responsible for the actions of other members of that group.

Good to know. Very progressive stance.

KeyStone

Ah, I see.

So, it's alright for private businesses to treat all members of a particular group as if they're responsible for the actions of other members of that group.

Good to know. Very progressive stance.

jas

Keystone, you've been here since 2008? WTF?

Mr.Tea

KeyStone wrote:

Ah, I see.

So, it's alright for private businesses to treat all members of a particular group as if they're responsible for the actions of other members of that group.

Good to know. Very progressive stance.

I don't think that's what they're doing. They're offering a service and a space for those who seek that sort thing. Some women would rather work out only among other women. I don't have a particular problem with that. Nor would I have a problem with a men only gym. If you'd rather go to a co-ed gym, there are plenty available.

KeyStone

"They're offering a service and a space for those who seek that sort thing. Some women would rather work out only among other women."

If we changed this to race, instead of gender, we could extrapolate on this accomodation of group dislike.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who would prefer to workout only among other white people. But that shoudn't be a problem as long as there are mixed race gyms available.

KeyStone

"They're offering a service and a space for those who seek that sort thing. Some women would rather work out only among other women."

If we changed this to race, instead of gender, we could extrapolate on this accomodation of group dislike.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who would prefer to workout only among other white people. But that shoudn't be a problem as long as there are mixed race gyms available.

And hey, I wouldn't have a problem with black-only or Asian only gyms. So, I guess that makes it alright.

MegB

KeyStone wrote:

Outrage because one male student asked to be treated like a long distance student for a single assignment because of religions beliefs. Meanwhile, there's like 5000 gyms that say 'no men allowed'.

In case you haven't noticed, you're in the feminist forum. "Discuss issues from a pro-feminist point of view" isn't a tag line, it's a statement of what will be tolerated in this feminist/womanist-friendly space. It's a mandate.

This is not the place where women's need to feel safe from unwanted sexual attention in gyms is to be debated. You can either check your male privilege and entitlement at the door, or keep out altogether. Your choice.

Pondering

Thank-you Meg, facing this as a "debate" again would have been demoralizing.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

KeyStone wrote:

Outrage because one male student asked to be treated like a long distance student for a single assignment because of religions beliefs. Meanwhile, there's like 5000 gyms that say 'no men allowed'.

The difference is that the women's gyms are private clubs, not a government agency or public business.  There are many private men's clubs in existence - let's start with the Masons, shall we?  They have a women's auxiliary, but women are not admitted as Masons.  There are plenty of others.  The rationale is probably different than it is for women's gyms, but the principle is the same - you can, actually, restrict membership by sex.

Now I'm wondering if the Sons of Norway accept those of ethnic heritage other than Scandinavian as members...

Pages