Women Only Gym at Harvard

[Sloth]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
I stated many times before that this whole affair is discrimination - pure and simple.

And that’s what it all boils down to. That’s what all the “What if a white…What if a devout christian man…What if a heterosexual…What if a Muslim man…” questions were about. They’re attempts to peel the issue down to it’s underlying principle. Yes, Harvard has decided to discriminate for one select gender and religion. We now agree.

On the first page of this thread (2nd post), I wrote: “So, yes, there is discrimination”.[/quote]

And then bitched about the bitching. The “We now agree,” is because I shortened your response to what it should have been. The underlying principle.

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It is one of the bastions of leftism. That is indisputable. Well, it is to anyone that knows anything about American higher education. [/quote]

Leftism my knee!

The Harvard board (the only relevant entity in this case) are all a bunch of war-mongers, Zionist-loving sons of bitches.

[quote]You still haven’t figured out that Massachusetts has state laws on point prohibiting discrimination, nor has it dawned on you that Harvard receives public funding, which raises Equal Protection concerns.

Harvard’s “privacy rights” are not what you think they are.[/quote]

Like I said before, if you hear of anyone mad enough to take Harvard to court over this, let me know. I’ll follow the case with the utmost interest in the hope of learning something about the school’s “privacy rights”.

Else, shut the hell up. It’s been a month already that the gym is women only, which suggests that your interpretation is a load of crap.

If the tenets of a religion conflict with our values and cause us to forfeit those values, the religion might very well be scrutinized. If that penetrates past your paper thin skin - no one cares.

Scrutinize all you want. I have nothing against that.

It is hatred and dangerous stereotypes that cause me to cling. Do you think my skin is “paper thin” because I considered the following sentences problematic?

[i]- “fuck them, and their nun-hatted religion”

• "How about we just ship their carbombing asses back to wherever the fuck they came from? " [/i]

If so, you might as well drop the mask right now.

[lixy]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And then bitched about the bitching. The “We now agree,” is because I shortened your response to what it should have been. The underlying principle.[/quote]

That’s one way to look at it.

And since we’re shortening responses to underlying principles, do you agree that some people here are using this story to demonize Islam?

[Gkhan]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And how do guns even come up in this?[/quote]

He’s quoting Warren Zevon, I think.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Leftism my knee!

The Harvard board (the only relevant entity in this case) are all a bunch of war-mongers, Zionist-loving sons of bitches.[/quote]

This must be another example of your smart, objective analysis based in your deep and broad knowledge of all things Americana - oh wait, no it’s not…it’s just another excuse to menstruate about your irrational hatred of Israel.

Well done.

To those minds that aren’t polluted by the Stupid, never forget Larry Summers was run out of town because he had the audacity to suggest there may be biological differences between men and women.

[quote]Like I said before, if you hear of anyone mad enough to take Harvard to court over this, let me know. I’ll follow the case with the utmost interest in the hope of learning something about the school’s “privacy rights”.

Else, shut the hell up. It’s been a month already that the gym is women only, which suggests that your interpretation is a load of crap.[/quote]

It’s cute when you try to talk tough.

Whether or not someone sues is irrelevant to our discussion of the merits of it. But instead of pretending it is, why not just fess up that you aren’t up for the discussion on the merits and bow out of the thread?

Scrutinize all you want. I have nothing against that.

Actually, you do - no one on PWI cries more than you do about victimization of your beliefs and religion.

[quote]It is hatred and dangerous stereotypes that cause me to cling. Do you think my skin is “paper thin” because I considered the following sentences problematic?

[i]- “fuck them, and their nun-hatted religion”

• "How about we just ship their carbombing asses back to wherever the fuck they came from? " [/i]

If so, you might as well drop the mask right now.[/quote]

Let’s see - that rhetoric is of the exact same flavor you use when discussing Zionists, or more specifically, “war-mongers, Zionist-loving sons of bitches”.

Let’s see - you don’t like stereotypes and hatred.

Tell me, what is the rhetorical difference between their “carbombing asses” and your “warmonger sons-of-bitches”?

Wouldn’t it be something if you weren’t such an obvious hypocrite trying to demand a level of respect for yourself and your religion that you won’t return in kind?

Pathetic. You’re too easy, Lixy - there’s no sport in it anymore.

[Sloth]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And then bitched about the bitching. The “We now agree,” is because I shortened your response to what it should have been. The underlying principle.

That’s one way to look at it.

And since we’re shortening responses to underlying principles, do you agree that some people here are using this story to demonize Islam?[/quote]

Sure, some people have done that. You’re free to defend against it, and I’m not concerned with your doing so. It’s other points you’ve raised that I’m talking about. By the way, check out the last couple pages on the religion thread, where the focus falls upon Christianity.

[PRCalDude]

Well, you might be right, but I just dont think this is part of the incremental “take-over”. As I said initially, when fundamentalist Muslims try to tear down western liberal institutions (as with their criticism of the Danish depictions of Mohammed) I will criticize them and not tolerate it. However, it is necessary to consider each case and I just don’t think this is an instance of that.

Muslims divide the world into Dar al-Harb (the house of war) and Dar al-Islam (the house of submission). Muslims are at war with those who haven’t submitted. Don’t take my word for it, study their texts yourself. Pick up a copy of Ibn Kathir and go to town. Read the Sira. Study the Qur’an and the Hadith. Do the due diligence before making claims like that.

The Muslim Brotherhood (commonly called “the Ikwhan”) does indeed have a plan to take over the entire West:

The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe

You have no idea how much Saudi oil money flows into that organization. Read “Sleeping with the Devil” and then see if you think the same thing. Do the due diligence:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/07/the_mulsim_brotherhood_for_beg.php

Here, this is the Brotherhood’s deepest thinker. Read his manifesto:
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/index_2.asp

[jsbrook]

I don’t understand this notion that no one would dare take the ‘eminent’ Harvard to court. There have BEEN many lawsuits against all institutions of all levels. The prestigous Harvard has been involved in lawsuits before, both from the student body and faculty. So happens they’d win this one as a private university. If they were public, there would be more of an issue of promotions or sponsorship of a religion.

[Zap_Branigan]

No men are allowed in the gym between 3 pm and 5 pm on Mondays, and between 8 am and 10 am on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Even the staff during those times is all women.

Employment discrimination too…

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Leftism my knee!

The Harvard board (the only relevant entity in this case) are all a bunch of war-mongers, Zionist-loving sons of bitches.

This must be another example of your smart, objective analysis based in your deep and broad knowledge of all things Americana - oh wait, no it’s not…it’s just another excuse to menstruate about your irrational hatred of Israel.

Well done. [/quote]

Their biggest portfolio is with in the MIC, which makes them war-mongers. I had lunch some time back with this Jewish guy that goes by the name of Brian Palmer who was in the school from his undergrad years until his professorship. When he started actively militating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the administration made his life a living hell. So much so, that he had was unable to do his job and had to relocate to Sweden. And he is no fan of Zionism.

I kinda trust the word of someone who spent more than a decade living, studying and teaching within the Harvard community, descriptions of the institution’s board.

It’s cute when you try to talk tough.

Right back at you.

Whether or not someone sues is irrelevant to our discussion of the merits of it. But instead of pretending it is, why not just fess up that you aren’t up for the discussion on the merits and bow out of the thread?

My, my, of course it is relevant. It’s called putting your money where your mouth is. And thus far, none of the thousands people at Harvard think they have any chance in court. They may be “sons-of-bitches”, but the folks in charge of the school aren’t stupid.

I don’t see any point in continuing in an endless speculation about the legal grounds of the test Harvard is conducting in their gym.

[quote]Let’s see - that rhetoric is of the exact same flavor you use when discussing Zionists, or more specifically, “war-mongers, Zionist-loving sons of bitches”.

Let’s see - you don’t like stereotypes and hatred.

Tell me, what is the rhetorical difference between their “carbombing asses” and your “warmonger sons-of-bitches”?

Wouldn’t it be something if you weren’t such an obvious hypocrite trying to demand a level of respect for yourself and your religion that you won’t return in kind? [/quote]

The difference is that I attacked the board of an institution which we established is discriminating against males for a few hours in one of their gym. If you think it was addressed towards Zionists, I suggest you work on your reading skills.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Their biggest portfolio is with in the MIC, which makes them war-mongers. I had lunch some time back with this Jewish guy that goes by the name of Brian Palmer who was in the school from his undergrad years until his professorship. When he started actively militating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the administration made his life a living hell. So much so, that he had was unable to do his job and had to relocate to Sweden. And he is no fan of Zionism.[/quote]

I don’t believe a word of that story. Sorry - you haven’t the integrity for me to take it at face value. And, on its face, I doubt it happened that way - sounds like an ideological “victim” yet again. No wonder you are friends with him.

I kinda trust the word of someone who spent more than a decade living, studying and teaching within the Harvard community, descriptions of the institution’s board.

You’ll trust the word of whoever agrees with your pre-determined ideology. He could have been at Harvard ten years or ten minutes, and it wouldn’t make any difference.

Harvard is quite the lefty establishment, and is quite proud of it. I have a fantastic idea - visit Boston. Do something other than pretend to know something about America when it is clear you have no idea.

Right back at you.

Wow.

My, my, of course it is relevant. It’s called putting your money where your mouth is. And thus far, none of the thousands people at Harvard think they have any chance in court. They may be “sons-of-bitches”, but the folks in charge of the school aren’t stupid.

How do you know that thousands of people of Harvard don’t think has any chance? And again, it’s irrelevant to those of us that want to discuss the merits of it.

Again, if you aren’t up to it - and you’re not - then stand aside while we discuss the Equal Protection concerns.

I don’t see any point in continuing in an endless speculation about the legal grounds of the test Harvard is conducting in their gym.

You keep referring to the fact that it is their gym - but that doesn’t insulate them from state law or federal if they receive public funding.

We are back to the point above - you aren’t up for the debate. An Equal Protection claim may win or lose, but you have no idea if it would or wouldn’t, so you have nothing useful to add. If you can’t improve the silence, perhaps you should stay quiet rather than keep trying to hear yourself talk on a topic you aren’t equipped to discuss.

The difference is that I attacked the board of an institution which we established is discriminating against males for a few hours in one of their gym. If you think it was addressed towards Zionists, I suggest you work on your reading skills.

Nice try, Lixy - you always try deflection when you get caught in your nonsense. You called them “Zionist supporters” as an insult along with “warmongers” - just be a man and stand behind your slurs. What does the board’s discrimination have to do with their support of Israel, especially since the discrimination privileges Muslims?

This is too easy - whatever the board’s discrimination against males that you are claiming you are so mad about, that has nothing to do with their support of Israel. You added it as a gratuitous insult. You meant it to be as such, and now you have been called on it.

You wrote it, you meant to insult them by being Zionist supporters - now you want to weasel out of it because you are guilty of the same kinds of insults you cry that people level against Muslims.

Again, the sport is gone. You never get any better or smarter.

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t believe a word of that story. Sorry - you haven’t the integrity for me to take it at face value. And, on its face, I doubt it happened that way - sounds like an ideological “victim” yet again. No wonder you are friends with him. [/quote]

Suit yourself. The guy is quite popular here in Sweden. He travels the country educating people.

Harvard is quite the lefty establishment, and is quite proud of it.

Yeah, yeah, just like the American Media…right?

Wow.

Double that.

How do you know that thousands of people of Harvard don’t think has any chance?

Ok. That one was poorly phrased. I should have written that it appeared that way.

[quote]You keep referring to the fact that it is their gym - but that doesn’t insulate them from state law or federal if they receive public funding.

We are back to the point above - you aren’t up for the debate. An Equal Protection claim may win or lose, but you have no idea if it would or wouldn’t, so you have nothing useful to add. [/quote]

I stated my position. I even stated that I’ll stop posting here for a month if anyone feels like suing Harvard over this. So, I have a pretty solid idea about it.

All I got in response was “you are an idiot”.

Nice try, Lixy - you always try deflection when you get caught in your nonsense. You called them “Zionist supporters” as an insult along with “warmongers” - just be a man and stand behind your slurs.

It was a characterization to show that Harvard is not the “lefty establishment” y’all are saying it is.

How is that even remotely similar to associating a bunch of Muslim women with car-bombers?

And for the love of details, I wrote “Zionist-loving” not “Zionist supporters”.

[quote]This is too easy - whatever the board’s discrimination against males that you are claiming you are so mad about, that has nothing to do with their support of Israel. You added it as a gratuitous insult. You meant it to be as such, and now you have been called on it.

You wrote it, you meant to insult them by being Zionist supporters - now you want to weasel out of it because you are guilty of the same kinds of insults you cry that people level against Muslims. [/quote]

Once again, it was to show that the elitist Harvard board is not “lefty”. Zionist-loving warmongers are, more often than not, both religious and hell-bent on world domination, which tears the “Harvard is quite the lefty establishment” claim to shreds.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Yeah, yeah, just like the American Media…right?[/quote]

You’ve already tried that argument and gotten sent home with your tail between your legs.

[quote]I stated my position. I even stated that I’ll stop posting here for a month if anyone feels like suing Harvard over this. So, I have a pretty solid idea about it.

All I got in response was “you are an idiot”. [/quote]

Well, you get called an idiot for completely independent reasons - you should be used to it. Second, you don’t have a “solid” idea about it because you know so little about it. You made a bet - that doesn’t demonstrate you know what you are talking about.

No one around here is discussing whether someone will sue or not - no one is particularly worried about it. What we were discussing is the merits of the policy, and if it comes within the legal net, how those in favor of it can justify the policy to the exclusion of other groups/religions.

Whether or not someone files a lawsuit is only really of interest to you.

And for the love of details, I wrote “Zionist-loving” not “Zionist supporters”.

The rest of your drivel is worth ignoring, but I’ll highlight this piece of stupidity.

You want me - and everyone else - to think you meant a difference between “Zionist supporting” and “Zionist loving”, and that one is meant as an insult and the other is not?

Laughable. Stop typing before you make it worse. Wait, nevermind - you can’t make it worse.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t believe a word of that story. Sorry - you haven’t the integrity for me to take it at face value. And, on its face, I doubt it happened that way - sounds like an ideological “victim” yet again. No wonder you are friends with him.

Suit yourself. The guy is quite popular here in Sweden. He travels the country educating people.
…[/quote]

And he was chased out of Harvard for speaking against the war? BULLSHIT!!!

[Revo09]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The Harvard gym is not a private gym for girls. It is a gym for the student body. If Harvard dedicated a gym to men only it would also be discrimination.

It’s still a private gym owned by a private institution payed for with a private (massive) endowment. I don’t necessarily agree with this decision-- particularly since I worked out in both those time slots in college-- but private organizations discriminate constantly in all facets of life as is usually their right.

Speaking of massive endowments in private places, my…

Yes they are private but they do receive public funding which may make this illegal. Either way the legality is not my complaint. The point that an institution like Harvard, which fired their president for pointing out differences between men and women in the area of higher mathematics is overtly discriminating based on gender is hypocritical and rather ironic.[/quote]

How does a private institution receive public funding? Im not trying to be condescending, I just always thought that private institutions were private because they didnt receive any government money.

[PRCalDude]

Lixy,

Most reasonable infidels understand that when a Muslim uses the term “Zionist,” it’s a code-word for Jew. The Jews didn’t have a homeland when the Mufti of Jerusalem (Yasser Arafat’s uncle) and the Bosniak Muslims teamed up with Hitler for the final solution. Moreover, as soon as the Mullahs came to power in Iran, the Jews were run out of there as well, just as they were out of the Arab countries when Israel was founded. Basically, all the Jews really need to do to run afoul of the Muslims is exist

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Revo09 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The Harvard gym is not a private gym for girls. It is a gym for the student body. If Harvard dedicated a gym to men only it would also be discrimination.

It’s still a private gym owned by a private institution payed for with a private (massive) endowment. I don’t necessarily agree with this decision-- particularly since I worked out in both those time slots in college-- but private organizations discriminate constantly in all facets of life as is usually their right.

Speaking of massive endowments in private places, my…

Yes they are private but they do receive public funding which may make this illegal. Either way the legality is not my complaint. The point that an institution like Harvard, which fired their president for pointing out differences between men and women in the area of higher mathematics is overtly discriminating based on gender is hypocritical and rather ironic.

How does a private institution receive public funding? Im not trying to be condescending, I just always thought that private institutions were private because they didnt receive any government money.[/quote]

Colleges get government grant money for just about anything.

[rainjack]

[quote]Revo09 wrote:
How does a private institution receive public funding? Im not trying to be condescending, I just always thought that private institutions were private because they didnt receive any government money.[/quote]

If anyone attending that school received a Pell Grant - the school is accepting public funding.

[entheogens]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Can a group of Muslim men demand an hour to have the pool free of women on the basis that their religion demands gender apartheid in bath houses? Is this not a “special need” based in a religious requirement?

I’ve asked a similar question, and noone has touched it. What’s more, even nonreligious men could support the muslim men’s demands, just to secure a male only time slot (even if only out of spite). So, I’ll ask again, myself. In what “fair” way could Muslim men be denied an hour of the gym, free of women?[/quote]

Ok, so you agree that there might be some special cases under which you might make the gym exclusively available to some group. Sloth makes the good point that we should distinguish between preference and requirement. Obviously my example of handicapped athletes is a requirement. The handicapped athletes have special needs that require special requirements.

Sloth also made a good counter-point to mine. He points out that there might be a case where conservative christians or muslims might feel uncomfortable sharing the gym/locker room with homosexuals.

While I recognize the distinction between preference and requirement, I feel that the distinction is not ALWAYS so clear and that, in any case, we should not ALWAYS ignore preference. For example, let’s say that due to economy of space (or whatever reason) that a school decides that there will be one bathroom in the gym and that it will be unisex. The women protest that that is unacceptable. Now we could clearly say that this is not a REQUIREMENT (after all, it is physically POSSIBLE for them to share the bathroom with the men) but a PREFERENCE. And after listening to their reasoning, the school officials may (or may not) decide to comply with their preference.

I’ll admit that the above is an extreme example (for an American, at least…there are places in the world that do have unisex bathrooms). My point is that there are cases in which we can understand complying with preferences. It needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

It would be necessary to consider certain criteria for such exceptions. For example, in the Harvard case, are there other school gyms within a reasonable distance that other students have access to.
Is the amount of time the group requesting unreasonably long? Are these peak hours? Is the special group’s reasons compelling, flimsy or even flagrant (for example, as Sloth puts it, asking for exclusivity “out of spite”)?

Now it could be, if I were a school administrator, that after listening to the Muslim students that I would agree with you and decide that they not be allowed exclusive access. However, I think a number of factors would need to be taken into account. It’s not a “black or white” but many “shades of gray” affair.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]It would be necessary to consider certain criteria for such exceptions. For example, in the Harvard case, are there other school gyms within a reasonable distance that other students have access to.
Is the amount of time the group requesting unreasonably long? Are these peak hours? Is the special group’s reasons compelling, flimsy or even flagrant (for example, as Sloth puts it, asking for exclusivity “out of spite”)?
[/quote]

“Out of spite” is really the question here. The Muslims had no problem leaving their countries, getting on a plane, and moving to Dar al-Harb. Now that they’re here, they don’t like a lot of things. Given the 10690 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, why should there be any doubt whether or not spite is involved when Muslims interact with the kuffar?

If you want to understand whether or not Muslims are attacking out of hostility or spite, wouldn’t the prudent thing to do be studying their religion? I don’t mean reading John Esposito and Karen Armstrong on Islam, I mean reading the actual source texts or at least an accurate representation of those texts.