Should a women-only hour at the gym be the standard policy?

[Lunalia]

As a woman who sometimes only has one hour a day free in which I could be going to the gym, I would be angry if I showed up during my free hour and found that it was a men only hour.

Thus, I am opposed to men showing up during their limited time between classes to find that it is women only hour.

I'm honestly not sure why the whole women wearing modest clothing even comes into it. I wear pants and a t shirt to the gym every day and no one cares. Why is seeing the football team lifting weights somehow threatening to a woman who doesn't know how to use equipment? That just means there are people there to ask. Sometimes there was no one there when I went to the gym at school. I feel that that would be more threatening to someone who genuinely wants to learn to use equipment they aren't familiar with because using it wrong can hurt you.

[Post War America]

As a woman who sometimes only has one hour a day free in which I could be going to the gym, I would be angry if I showed up during my free hour and found that it was a men only hour.

Thus, I am opposed to men showing up during their limited time between classes to find that it is women only hour.

I'm honestly not sure why the whole women wearing modest clothing even comes into it. I wear pants and a t shirt to the gym every day and no one cares. Why is seeing the football team lifting weights somehow threatening to a woman who doesn't know how to use equipment? That just means there are people there to ask. Sometimes there was no one there when I went to the gym at school. I feel that that would be more threatening to someone who genuinely wants to learn to use equipment they aren't familiar with because using it wrong can hurt you.

Well, the ideology behind these measures assumes that anybody born with a penis (very often including trans-women) is a clear and present danger to women just by being in their presence, Male Gaze (which I don't contest is a thing) as a form of rape or that all men are animals unable to control their sexual urges. Therefore the only rational thing to do is to treat women like fragile vases, or more accurately, like children, who need to protecting from the scary world, and sheltered in safe spaces. Its this kind of thinking that sexists used to justify denying women the vote, and this kind of thinking that keeps the patriarchy intact and women from being actually empowered. Its this kind of thinking that leads me to believe that the purveyors of this ideology aren't actually feminists at all.

[Kulonia]

This is a fantastic idea.

However, it clearly doesn't go far enough with ensuring true equality for women. As such, I humbly propose the following solutions for these pesky everyday, reasonable problems:

* Make women only entrances to the building, preferably in the rear side of the building out of sight to ensure maximum privacy.

* Install women only drinking fountains at chest height. This way, men can't possibly get a glimpse of a female bent over revealing herself through her ultra thin and tight yoga pants. Be sure to install a giant "WOMEN ONLY" sign above them, to ensure nobody gets them confused with the other ones.

* Women shall have segregated communal items normally provided to all by the facility, such as towels. This will be done to ensure that the one pervert that exists cannot possibly "sniff" a used towel. Said towels will be kept out of sight of the main areas for further protection.

* We should also pass a series of laws into effect, that even further these rights by legally separating them from society even further. We can call it something catchy, like "The Feminine Control Acts"... yes, that IS catchy indeed.

Mmmm........taste the Progress.

Right here.
Ooh, we should make them sit in different parts of the bus too! to avoid being stared at!

We should also make them wear veils, too. Maybe even have a divider across the gym. Eh? Eh?

[Hirota]

Provided they comply with the feminism ministry of truth. Can't have the freedom to question the narrative can they.

I know that there are exceptions that can be used as proof that Feminists are trying to limit women's choices.
Very useful to your cause, isn't it?

Well, if you are asking if you are useful as proof (because you are a Feminist and you do advocate to limit womens choices). Sure. The particular branch of feminist lunacy you advocate is why so many people think you are a false flag. People would rather assume you are a minority lunatic in the various demographics of feminism rather than the mainstream. Luckily you keep quoting other lunatic and popular feminists to demonstrate it is the mainstream. So yes, you are useful because you prove you are not the exception but closer to the rule.

Let's apply it to Politics, to better understand the concept:
Democracy is oppressive towards many people: political parties that get less than 4% don't get seats within the Parliament. The instances of people who voted such political parties aren't represented. Democracy failed its mission that was the representation of all people. Let's abolish Democracy, it's oppressive.

A) That is not universally true of all democracies. For example, in Sweden (a country you cite so often you really should have known this) and other Nordic countries, they use Two-tier party list systems. Other countries use Mixed-member proportional representation.

Your claim here is an example of a False Dilemma fallacy - the original claim simply does not hold true to democracy as a universal form of government.

B) In addition to that, the assumption that one leads to another is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. You've not demonstrated that failing to represent 4% of the electorate is a failure of democracy. It can also be seen to act as a balancing force to ensure that minority views that tend to the extreme edges of the Overton window do not gain political traction.

C) Even if we accept it is true without the supporting evidence, there is no argument that Democracy should be abolished, because as bad as it might be, it is still better than all the other systems out there (admittedly this is an example of a false dilemma of my own). Feminism is awful, and there is better out there. Even if there wasn't better, a system of government has to exist for a society to function, a sect advocating the oppression of men and women who challenge the cult narrative does not have to exist for society to function. On that basis this attempt at an analogy is a faulty comparrison.

D) There is evidence that Feminism isn't a majority group. So if your position is that minority sects (such as feminism) are not represented, I'd say if that was true that it is a good thing.

Do you see the logic fail, now?

I see several. I've pointed them out.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Also, what is this "Womyn" crap that Chess has said they view as a correct spelling of the word "Woman"? Either they just wanted a phrase they could copyright and did not care about it looking stupid as hell, or they are ignorant and do not understand the origins of the word, and simply saw 'men' and assumed it had to do with the patriarchy instead of, y'know, old definitions of outdated words from other languages that were combined to form the early english language what our current words, such as Womyn, were based off of.

[FORMER HATOOTELAND]

If you want a woman only hour, shouldn't there be a men's only hour too or are men not in need of anything a woman would need.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

I cant believe it this thread is still active?!?!?!?

[Tysoania]

Also, what is this "Womyn" crap that Chess has said they view as a correct spelling of the word "Woman"?

It's in the book Politically Correct Bedtime Stories. I'm not sure if it originated there, but the explanation is pretty much that the word "women/woman" has a masculine word in it, and thus represents male dominance.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Also, what is this "Womyn" crap that Chess has said they view as a correct spelling of the word "Woman"?

It's in the book Politically Correct Bedtime Stories. I'm not sure if it originated there, but the explanation is pretty much that the word "women/woman" has a masculine word in it, and thus represents male dominance.

Isnt that a satire book?

[Crockerland]

So, basically, we have, at Carleton University, the Womyn's Centre making a perfectly reasonable demand, having positive responses, but then being attacked and harassed by unknown misogynists: pretty coward, isn't it?

Personally I think that that the Womyn's Centre demand is not just only perfectly reasonable but it should be the standard policy within universities: a women-only hour at the gym, each day. I even think that it would be a very good idea for every gym, not just only within universities.

What do you think NSGs?

"Womens' Center"
It's not all that much of a complicated name to spell properly.

[Chessmistress]

So, basically, we have, at Carleton University, the Womyn's Centre making a perfectly reasonable demand, having positive responses, but then being attacked and harassed by unknown misogynists: pretty coward, isn't it?

Personally I think that that the Womyn's Centre demand is not just only perfectly reasonable but it should be the standard policy within universities: a women-only hour at the gym, each day. I even think that it would be a very good idea for every gym, not just only within universities.

What do you think NSGs?

"Womens' Center"
It's not all that much of a complicated name to spell properly.

The right spell is "Womyn's Centre" - check it
https://carleton.ca/womensstudies/resou ... ns-centre/

It's a very common thing in many universities - in example this isn't Carleton University, but The University of Manitoba Womyn’s Centre, and they explain the reason for the Y, quite well:

Language is very powerful and carries more meaning than we often stop and think about. In changing just one letter in the word ‘women’ your curiosity peaks and challenges you to think outside the box. This is exactly what we are trying to do! We want to draw people’s attention to what the word ‘woman’ historically means and its implication.

The word ‘woman’ refers to ‘of man’ implying that a woman’s identity is inherently reliant on man. We believe that womyn deserve an identity of their own which is why the Womyn’s Centre embraces and celebrates a women-centred culture.

In spelling womyn with a “Y”, we recognize that womyn have diverse and different identities and roles which are not all defined by a relationships to men (or dictionaries!).

https://womynscentre.wordpress.com/why-the-y/

[Proctopeo]

They didn't even get the etymology right - it comes from wif, which means "wife" and previously meant "woman", and man, which in Old English meant "human being", so literally "human woman" - not "of man". There was an equivalent for what we use "man" for today, in wer and werman - literally "human man". Eventually, wer fell out of favor, and "man" became both the gender-neutral "human" word and the word referring to the masculine gender.

[Chessmistress]

They didn't even get the etymology right - it comes from wif, which means "wife" and previously meant "woman", and man, which in Old English meant "human being", so literally "human woman" - not "of man". There was an equivalent for what we use "man" for today, in wer and werman - literally "human man". Eventually, wer fell out of favor, and "man" became both the gender-neutral "human" word and the word referring to the masculine gender.

It's not about the etymology, it's about identification, Womyn's Centre of University of Manitoba explains it quite well.

[Proctopeo]

They didn't even get the etymology right - it comes from wif, which means "wife" and previously meant "woman", and man, which in Old English meant "human being", so literally "human woman" - not "of man". There was an equivalent for what we use "man" for today, in wer and werman - literally "human man". Eventually, wer fell out of favor, and "man" became both the gender-neutral "human" word and the word referring to the masculine gender.

It's not about the etymology, it's about identification, Womyn's Centre of University of Manitoba explains it quite well.

The problem is, "woman" does not refer to "of man". Etymology is important in this case. I don't see how they came to their conclusion in the slightest.

[RFI]

It's not about the etymology, it's about identification, Womyn's Centre of University of Manitoba explains it quite well.

The problem is, "woman" does not refer to "of man". Etymology is important in this case. I don't see how they came to their conclusion in the slightest.

The word "woman" can being construed as referred to "man" and very often is construed as referred to "man", hence why the etymology isn't the main issue and the use of "Womyn" is important.

[Elwher]

It's not about the etymology, it's about identification, Womyn's Centre of University of Manitoba explains it quite well.

The problem is, "woman" does not refer to "of man". Etymology is important in this case. I don't see how they came to their conclusion in the slightest.

Because it felt right to them, and facts be damned. The same reason why the use of the term niggardly can lead to a job loss, despite it having no racist overtones.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

The fuck? Do we live in such a PC world that people are trying to change the spelling of a word just because they get offended by it's origin (which is bullshit too, woman does not derive from man)?

Holy fucking god..

[Proctopeo]

The problem is, "woman" does not refer to "of man". Etymology is important in this case. I don't see how they came to their conclusion in the slightest.

The word "woman" can being construed as referred to "man" and very often is construed as referred to "man", hence why the etymology isn't the main issue and the use of "Womyn" is important.

Just because something can be construed in such a way does not make it a valid interpretation. Etymology is important, as the "man" in "woman" refers to the gender-neutral usage, not the "person of masculine gender" usage.

[Paddy O Fernature]

The fuck? Do we live in such a PC world that people are trying to change the spelling of a word just because they get offended by it's origin (which is bullshit too, woman does not derive from man)?

Holy fucking god..

No, but there ARE people trying to turn it into that hell on a daily basis.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

The fuck? Do we live in such a PC world that people are trying to change the spelling of a word just because they get offended by it's origin (which is bullshit too, woman does not derive from man)?

Holy fucking god..

No, but there ARE people trying to turn it into that hell on a daily basis.

*points at OP*

[Paddy O Fernature]

No, but there ARE people trying to turn it into that hell on a daily basis.

*points at OP*

That goes without saying really.

[Post War America]

I would like to point out that the use of women vs womyn is not the topic of this debate (regardless of my personal feelings on the matter), and we should instead be discussing the mandate of a women's only hour as standard policy in public universities, and not the etymology of a word and how it is changed.

[Galloism]

It seems to me that, if you ARE going to institute a women's only hour, but not a men's only hour, then women should have to pay more than men, because they're receiving a higher level of service.

This would be at least marginally fair.

[Settrah]

The fuck? Do we live in such a PC world that people are trying to change the spelling of a word just because they get offended by it's origin (which is bullshit too, woman does not derive from man)?

Holy fucking god..

It gets worse, there were feminists a while back on certain social networking sites (we can kind of assume which one) claiming that the word 'female' was misogynistic language, because it implies women only exist as a biological agent, and that 'teh menz' reduced them down to simply a role of birthing children and nothing else, and that referring to a woman as female was apparently an absolutely huge problem that western women struggle with oh so much daily that absolutely needed to be addressed.

People really do just want to stir shit for the sake of feeling hard done by.

[FORMER HATOOTELAND]

They didn't even get the etymology right - it comes from wif, which means "wife" and previously meant "woman", and man, which in Old English meant "human being", so literally "human woman" - not "of man". There was an equivalent for what we use "man" for today, in wer and werman - literally "human man". Eventually, wer fell out of favor, and "man" became both the gender-neutral "human" word and the word referring to the masculine gender.

It's not about the etymology, it's about identification, Womyn's Centre of University of Manitoba explains it quite well.

I wonder how you passed your exams