Women Only Gym at Harvard

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If this were done at the largest and most used gym on campus, I might just agree with you. But that isn’t what happened. They chose off the wall times to train that most people don’t even use (especially those who are serious) and they did this at apparently one of the least used gyms on campus. I just don’t see the problem here.

This is Harvard. Most of those people are over-privileged in the first place. They don’t need anyone to fight for their “freedom”. They never lost it. [/quote]

In practicality, no, it is not that big of a deal. The problem is in the principle of the matter.

102

[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If this were done at the largest and most used gym on campus, I might just agree with you. But that isn’t what happened. They chose off the wall times to train that most people don’t even use (especially those who are serious) and they did this at apparently one of the least used gyms on campus. I just don’t see the problem here.

This is Harvard. Most of those people are over-privileged in the first place. They don’t need anyone to fight for their “freedom”. They never lost it.

In practicality, no, it is not that big of a deal. The problem is in the principle of the matter.[/quote]

I would bet five whole American dollars (which is worth about…well, damn near nothing worldwide now) that if they were making a specific time for Conservative Christian women to train because they feel tempted by sweaty guys that there would be much less outrage about principle.

103

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If this were done at the largest and most used gym on campus, I might just agree with you. But that isn’t what happened. They chose off the wall times to train that most people don’t even use (especially those who are serious) and they did this at apparently one of the least used gyms on campus. I just don’t see the problem here.

This is Harvard. Most of those people are over-privileged in the first place. They don’t need anyone to fight for their “freedom”. They never lost it.

In practicality, no, it is not that big of a deal. The problem is in the principle of the matter.

I would bet five whole American dollars (which is worth about…well, damn near nothing worldwide now) that if they were making a specific time for Conservative Christian women to train because they feel tempted by sweaty guys that there would be much less outrage about principle.[/quote]

That would be the only way they could justify themselves, but I guarantee you it would get much less sympathy than the Islamics are geting.

104

[quote]tedro wrote:
lixy wrote:
No. They ban anybody but women. It’s awfully different from "Muslim women.

Doesn’t change the premise of my argument. [/quote]

True. I just clarified what I thought was a voluntary obfuscation.

[quote]Errr…it is the government that funds the university. Let’s not twist things, shall we?

And who funds the government? [/quote]

My government invests heavily in US bonds.

Look here ted, you wrote “compared to a university that accepts public funds”. That’s essentially like saying saying that the black eye you gave someone is their fault because they got in the way of your punch.

It’s misrepresentation at its finest.

I’m listening…

Hmmm…to have women barred from the gym, you would need the male equivalent of Harvard’s Center for Women, which to the best of my knowledge doesn’t exist.

Women had to solidarize (is that even a verb?) because they were discriminated against for a lot more important issues than this silly case. If you want to take a stand on principles, I have nothing against that. But you’re going to need to:

  1. Cet accepted to Harvard and have enough money to pay their tuition,

  2. Form the Harvard’s Center for Men and find enough members (getting enrolled at Harvard is a piece of cake in comparison!),

  3. Show the administration that their decision is unacceptable, because you live on the edge of campus and have to train between 8 and 10 every Monday morning.

You don’t.

Harvard feels that it is in their best interest to do it. Go ask them if there’s a “need” involved. I personally suspect that it has something to do with their generous Saudi benefactor.

Once again, don’t blame the Harvard’s Center for Women because they’re lobbying for their constituency. Blame whoever is giving them public funds when Harvard is a private institution that has every right to run their gyms as they damn please. You’ll have to convince politicians that those lousy two hours in the least used gym are more important to the country than whatever good comes from the place, keeping in mind that many of them are Harvard alumni.

105

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I would bet five whole American dollars (which is worth about…well, damn near nothing worldwide now) that if they were making a specific time for Conservative Christian women to train because they feel tempted by sweaty guys that there would be much less outrage about principle.[/quote]

At the very least, there would be much less foul language from a certain douche.

106

[quote]lixy wrote:
Look here ted, you wrote “compared to a university that accepts public funds”. That’s essentially like saying saying that the black eye you gave someone is their fault because they got in the way of your punch.

It’s misrepresentation at its finest.
[/quote]
If they intentionally jumped in front of my swinging fist it is their fault. Who is forcing Harvard to accept the funds? With the acceptance of public funds comes certain responsibilities to act in the best interest of the public.

[quote]
Hmmm…to have women barred from the gym, you would need the male equivalent of Harvard’s Center for Women, which to the best of my knowledge doesn’t exist.

Women had to solidarize (is that even a verb?) because they were discriminated against for a lot more important issues than this silly case. If you want to take a stand on principles, I have nothing against that. But you’re going to need to:

  1. Cet accepted to Harvard and have enough money to pay their tuition,

  2. Form the Harvard’s Center for Men and find enough members (getting enrolled at Harvard is a piece of cake in comparison!),

  3. Show the administration that their decision is unacceptable, because you live on the edge of campus and have to train between 8 and 10 every Monday morning.

Second, why do we need to cater to anybody for religiuos reasons?

You don’t.

Harvard feels that it is in their best interest to do it. Go ask them if there’s a “need” involved. I personally suspect that it has something to do with their generous Saudi benefactor.

If they want their own place to work out, go find one, but nobody else deserves to be punished so that these women can have there way, not when public funds are involved anyways.

Once again, don’t blame the Harvard’s Center for Women because they’re lobbying for their constituency. Blame whoever is giving them public funds when Harvard is a private institution that has every right to run their gyms as they damn please. You’ll have to convince politicians that those lousy two hours in the least used gym are more important to the country than whatever good comes from the place, keeping in mind that many of them are Harvard alumni.[/quote]

Red herring but I’ll take it.

I’m not arguing against the center for women, nobody is. There is also no reason why one would need to create an organized group to bring forth a complaint against university policy.

But since you brought it up, the problem isn’t with creating a group for women. The problem is when this group claims to stand for equality, but what they really want is a leg up on everyone else. Women don’t deserve restitution because past generations banned them from voting. This is reverse discrimination, and that is every bit as wrong as discrimination. Two wrongs don’t make it right. All I want to see is equality among publicly funded organizations, and a free market in the private sector.

107

Does Harvard take any government money?

108

[quote]tedro wrote:
Who is forcing Harvard to accept the funds? With the acceptance of public funds comes certain responsibilities to act in the best interest of the public. [/quote]

Who is forcing Harvard? What kind of twisted logic is that?

Repeat after me: Harvard is a private institution!

You have no control over what they do. The best you can hope for, is to get whatever public body is financing them to stop. But you have as much chance achieving that as growing a third nipple.

I hear you.

The oppressed and discriminated against, naturally formed strong alliances and active lobbies. Be it the women, black or anyone else who’s particularly suffered in the past. Take the Jews for example. Would the Brits have handed to them a shiny new country if they weren’t organized and militant enough. That organization came from their millenia of persecution culminating in the Final Solution. Organizations of women are no different. As long as men don’t really experience oppression (and no, ladies’ night does not qualify) they won’t create structures dedicated to furthering their cause.

How many times do I got to say this: Harvad is P-R-I-V-A-T-E. That the government decides to give them money does not change that status!

Sheesh.

109

[quote]lixy wrote:
How many times do I got to say this: Harvad is P-R-I-V-A-T-E. That the government decides to give them money does not change that status!

Sheesh.[/quote]

Actually, accepting government funds has motivated the likes of the ACLU to take organizations to court. If they’re accepting government funds, they could very well become a legitimate target. Lixy, this isn’t about how you’d like things go, but how things are.

110

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, accepting government funds has motivated the likes of the ACLU to take organizations to court. If they’re accepting government funds, they could very well become a legitimate target. Lixy, this isn’t about how you’d like things go, but how things are.[/quote]

Hmmm…did the ACLU win any of those cases?

More importantly, do you think the ACLU is going to sue Harvard for not allowing men in the least frequented campus gym for two hours three times a week? Seriously?

111

Look at the Boy Scouts and Catholic charities, for examples. And look at the private conservative Jewish Univ., Yeshiva.
If there is even a hint of contact with the public at large, or government funding, look out! And if the ACLU doesn’t take it up, somebody else will.

112

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, accepting government funds has motivated the likes of the ACLU to take organizations to court. If they’re accepting government funds, they could very well become a legitimate target. Lixy, this isn’t about how you’d like things go, but how things are.

Hmmm…did the ACLU win any of those cases?

More importantly, do you think the ACLU is going to sue Harvard for not allowing men in the least frequented campus gym for two hours three times a week? Seriously?[/quote]

The ACLU doesn’t need to win cases to affect the culture. The threat of having spend money on a lawyer is enough. CAIR certainly knows this.

113

[quote]

lixy wrote:
Do you think anyone would want to go down that road against Harvard?

BostonBarrister wrote:

Yeah. Any annoyed student. Particularly a rich one with an ax to grind.

lixy wrote:

Seriously? You don’t even know what type of documents they give their students to sign during enrollment.

Don’t confuse your wishes with reality.[/quote]

Don’t confuse your speculations with reality. Do you think Harvard has students sign a preemptive waiver or discrimination claims? And do you think, if they did, that would be enforceable?

114

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If no body should be getting preferential treatment, then NO BODY should be getting preferential treatment. If you can pick and choose who gets preferential treatment based on how popular they are, then obviously no one really cares that much about preferential treatment. They just care WHO gets it.[/quote]

It’s not that no one can get preferential treatment. It’s that the civil rights laws prohibit using certain characteristics as the basis for preferential treatment.

115

[quote]lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
Is it fair that an american muslim gets a job as a store clerk and then refuses to scan alcohol or pork products?

Fair for whom?

If said American Muslim owns the store, then I don’t think it should be an issue. I never heard of anyone dying from alcohol-thirst or pork-hunger. I did however hear of people dying because they couldn’t get contraceptive means.

If the store owner is OK with the clerk refusing “to scan alcohol or pork products”, then it should be none of your business; it’s literally his not yours!

If the store owner has issue with clerks in his store refusing “to scan alcohol or pork products”, they will then be fired.

Either way, I don’t see it as a major inconvenience.

To me its the same case as the Harvard gym.

If you must train in that particular gym at those particular hours, then you have two choices:

  • Lobby for the school to revoke the privileges granted to the Harvard Center for Women.

  • Go to a different school.

Somehow, I think the Harvard body is smart enough to be flexible about this whole affair. And if you have to be rigid, they probably don’t want you in their school anyway.

If you can’t workout in your Burka, then tough shit, stay at home.

As it stands, it’s rather the other way around. If you can’t accept Harvard’s decision to give women those two hours three times a week, then tough shit!

All you can do from Arkansas about it is bitch. Feel free to do so, but please don’t slip into your idol’s (i.e: the douche) openly bigoted hate language.

What is stopping someone at Harvard from saying “you know, I really like to workout butt naked, and I think you should give me a set schedule and not allow anyone else to workout during that time.”

I think there are laws against that. But nothing’s stopping that “someone at Harvard” from trying.

It sure didn’t stop these girls:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/21/europe/EU-ODD-Sweden-Topless-Swimmers.php [/quote]

So I guess if the store owner is OK with not hiring blacks it should be "none of my business either? It his, not mine, right?

All you can do from Sweden is be a dick and defend this bullshit.

116

Let’s stop the madness.

When any of you guys decide to sue Harvard or ear of somebody suing them over this discrimation, let me know.

Ok?

117

[quote]lixy wrote:
Let’s stop the madness.

When any of you guys decide to sue Harvard or ear of somebody suing them over this discrimation, let me know.

Ok?[/quote]

We’re tired of Islam’s campaign of inches.

118

Your one to talk about not taking action.

“Guys what country should I move too? whaaaaa-fucking-whaaaaa.”

119

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Borrowing some legal analysis here:

[i] In 1998 a female weight lifter in Boston was awarded $5000 when she was denied admission to a male-only section of a gym which had a separate gym area for women. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination made the ruling despite arguments that separate weight-lifting areas were necessary to prevent “sexual harassment,” and a finding that it did in fact tend to reduce sexual harassment. [Hassan and DiCenso v. City of Boston, et al., 20 MDLR 83]

Just a year earlier Superior Court Judge Burnes ruled that a "women only" health club violates Massachusetts' public accommodation statute by refusing to admit men, and could not justify its policy on privacy grounds. [Foster v. Back Bay Spas, d/b/a/ Healthworks Fitness Center, Suffolk Superior Court No. 96-7060 (1997).]

Although the legislature responded by exempting some health clubs which are established solely for use by one gender, that exemption does not appear to apply here because the gym is used by both genders together during most times of the day, and because Harvard receives public funds. [/i][/quote]

A different legal analysis, with the opposite conclusion applying MA law, here:

http://volokh.com/posts/1204777981.shtml

120

[quote]lixy wrote:
Let’s stop the madness.

When any of you guys decide to sue Harvard or ear of somebody suing them over this discrimation, let me know.

Ok?[/quote]

How about you just fuck off? You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual, and you just keep yammering.

Good God - I may be a douche, but you are a full flowing vagina.