Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:03 amALLAHU AKBAR
yeah good idea
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Should a women-only hour at the gym be the standard policy?
Page 54 of 58
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:03 amPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:06 amPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:08 amPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:11 amDid she change her mind?
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:17 amPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:38 amLet each gym decide its own policy and anyone inexperienced have instructions and courses specific for them. If a gym is not doing it your way, you can found your own with your own policy or persuade the gym otherwise, as has been done in this instance. You don't even have to exercise in a gym, if you don't want to. Just get some equipment to your home. Simple as that. Personally, I see no merit for implementing sex-specific hours at gyms, swimming pools or other facilities by any other than the facilities themselves, nor do I see how this pertains to women's liberation in any way.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:00 pm"just go buy your own gym equipment/start your own gym"
peak bougie
peak bougie
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:12 pmThink you're missing an 'r' there somewhere. I may be wrong though, in which case I don't get what you said.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:20 pmRandom Fact: There is something called benevolent sexism.
It's a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist because it casts women as weak creatures in need of protection.
It's a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist because it casts women as weak creatures in need of protection.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:38 pmPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:42 pmDark Triads wrote:Let each gym decide its own policy and anyone inexperienced have instructions and courses specific for them. If a gym is not doing it your way, you can found your own with your own policy or persuade the gym otherwise, as has been done in this instance. You don't even have to exercise in a gym, if you don't want to. Just get some equipment to your home. Simple as that. Personally, I see no merit for implementing sex-specific hours at gyms, swimming pools or other facilities by any other than the facilities themselves, nor do I see how this pertains to women's liberation in any way.
And as many others have already pointed out on this thread, that's not a proper solution to the problem since we are talking about university gyms. Firstly, for the most part paying to use the gym is not something you can get out of at many universities (and its the same price for every student regardless of what equipment they've got between their legs). Secondly, we're talking about university students here, who likely can't afford their own exercise equipment (So much so that one could be choosing between eating that semester or buying a treadmill).
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:55 pmI was new to gyms once and it was intimidating. But I wanted to work out so I got over it. I won't pretend to know the culture of every gym or college gym in this case, but no one was stopping me from going in myself. I think it's that simple for a lot of people.Chessmistress wrote:Imagine you’re going to the university gym for the first time, perhaps after making a New Year’s resolution to get yourself in shape. You don’t know much about how to use the equipment, and when you walk in, the entire football team is there lifting weights. It’s probably intimidating.
Now, consider what this might feel like for a young woman. Or how it would feel for a young woman who’s also religiously observant, and wearing conspicuously modest clothing.
If you can put yourself in this person’s runners, you’ll have a sense of why the Carleton University Students’ Association, the Muslim Students’ Association, the Graduate Students’ Association and a residence association are asking that the gym at Carleton University reserve one hour per day for women only.
I put myself in their runners and I still don't understand it.
There has been backlash to this suggestion, with some opponents claiming the initiative is sexist. Yet it’s a bit odd that the grievance is being raised; after all, the school’s pool already has women-only swim times. It’s the same principle.
The dissenters could also think that, too, is sexist.
Contrary to what opponents argue, this gym proposal is not sexism or segregation.
It's discrimination on the basis of sex. For a reason that might not fully pan out. Doesn't sound great to me.
It’s a perfectly reasonable accommodation, a minimal imposition in order to make a diverse community comfortable. True, it isn’t the role of a university fitness facility to insert itself into societal debates about religion and gender roles. But it is its role to encourage fitness and ensure that as many people as possible are participating.
Or they could just remind the student body that they're open to everyone, and promise to deal with any sexism or other sorts of bigotry should it arise.
And other young women may simply prefer not to be working out with the entire men’s basketball team hefting weights around them.
So the basketball team is just there 24/7? These women can't pick another hour to work out, or, I don't know, get over their disinclination instead of imposing it on the rest of the student body?
>>implying all opponents are responsible for unnerving the women. Nice.Opponents of this proposal should be asking what they’re doing that is making their fellow classmates uncomfortable at the gym.[/b]
And if this proposal gets more young women – of any faith or culture – to spend time on fitness, it’s worth the small compromise involved.
Limiting what other people can do so certain groups can feel more comfortable. No actually grievance about sexual harassment or any evidence to suggest that's what's going on at the gym at this college--it's just about feelings.. Presumed feelings, at that. I don't think it's a good proposal.
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.
I disagree.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:59 pmPost War America wrote:Dark Triads wrote:Let each gym decide its own policy and anyone inexperienced have instructions and courses specific for them. If a gym is not doing it your way, you can found your own with your own policy or persuade the gym otherwise, as has been done in this instance. You don't even have to exercise in a gym, if you don't want to. Just get some equipment to your home. Simple as that. Personally, I see no merit for implementing sex-specific hours at gyms, swimming pools or other facilities by any other than the facilities themselves, nor do I see how this pertains to women's liberation in any way.
And as many others have already pointed out on this thread, that's not a proper solution to the problem since we are talking about university gyms. Firstly, for the most part paying to use the gym is not something you can get out of at many universities (and its the same price for every student regardless of what equipment they've got between their legs). Secondly, we're talking about university students here, who likely can't afford their own exercise equipment (So much so that one could be choosing between eating that semester or buying a treadmill).
It's not like you need equipment of any kind to do exercise either. If that still is a problem to someone, an increase or implementation of students' benefits for university students based on their and their parents' income should fix it.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:10 pmDark Triads wrote:Post War America wrote:
And as many others have already pointed out on this thread, that's not a proper solution to the problem since we are talking about university gyms. Firstly, for the most part paying to use the gym is not something you can get out of at many universities (and its the same price for every student regardless of what equipment they've got between their legs). Secondly, we're talking about university students here, who likely can't afford their own exercise equipment (So much so that one could be choosing between eating that semester or buying a treadmill).
It's not like you need equipment of any kind to do exercise either. If that still is a problem to someone, an increase or implementation of students' benefits for university students based on their and their parents' income should fix it.
I will conceede the first point for the most part (Though strength training is rather difficult without a lot of manual labor or proper weights, which are things that the typical student won't be
able to have access to easily, but most other forms of exercise could be duplicated elsewhere). As the second, also not necessarily likely, Canada and Europe might have decent education funding but in the US at least the government is openly hostile to giving people under the age of 65 "Free Money" to help them out with anything. That's why the dilemma of eating or working out is a problem in the first place. Further the basing on parent's income isn't always helpful because very often well-to-do parents are unwilling or (more rarely) unable to help the kid out. All those points aside (don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here), telling people to not use a university service that they've likely paid for if they can't have their way isn't the best way to solve the problem. I'm certainly not saying that gender segregated gyms are either, but telling people to suck it up and deal solves very little other than burying the problem for a while.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:19 pmPost War America wrote:Dark Triads wrote:It's not like you need equipment of any kind to do exercise either. If that still is a problem to someone, an increase or implementation of students' benefits for university students based on their and their parents' income should fix it.
I will conceede the first point for the most part (Though strength training is rather difficult without a lot of manual labor or proper weights, which are things that the typical student won't be
able to have access to easily, but most other forms of exercise could be duplicated elsewhere). As the second, also not necessarily likely, Canada and Europe might have decent education funding but in the US at least the government is openly hostile to giving people under the age of 65 "Free Money" to help them out with anything. That's why the dilemma of eating or working out is a problem in the first place. Further the basing on parent's income isn't always helpful because very often well-to-do parents are unwilling or (more rarely) unable to help the kid out. All those points aside (don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here), telling people to not use a university service that they've likely paid for if they can't have their way isn't the best way to solve the problem. I'm certainly not saying that gender segregated gyms are either, but telling people to suck it up and deal solves very little other than burying the problem for a while.
If their way is to selfishly screw half the school over for no good reason with no compensation, then yes, telling them to suck it up is the right thing to do.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:20 pmI mean sure, but having proper equipment is kinda more time efficient.Dark Triads wrote:Post War America wrote:
And as many others have already pointed out on this thread, that's not a proper solution to the problem since we are talking about university gyms. Firstly, for the most part paying to use the gym is not something you can get out of at many universities (and its the same price for every student regardless of what equipment they've got between their legs). Secondly, we're talking about university students here, who likely can't afford their own exercise equipment (So much so that one could be choosing between eating that semester or buying a treadmill).
It's not like you need equipment of any kind to do exercise either. If that still is a problem to someone, an increase or implementation of students' benefits for university students based on their and their parents' income should fix it.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:38 pmPost War America wrote:Dark Triads wrote:It's not like you need equipment of any kind to do exercise either. If that still is a problem to someone, an increase or implementation of students' benefits for university students based on their and their parents' income should fix it.
I will conceede the first point for the most part (Though strength training is rather difficult without a lot of manual labor or proper weights, which are things that the typical student won't be
able to have access to easily, but most other forms of exercise could be duplicated elsewhere). As the second, also not necessarily likely, Canada and Europe might have decent education funding but in the US at least the government is openly hostile to giving people under the age of 65 "Free Money" to help them out with anything. That's why the dilemma of eating or working out is a problem in the first place. Further the basing on parent's income isn't always helpful because very often well-to-do parents are unwilling or (more rarely) unable to help the kid out. All those points aside (don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here), telling people to not use a university service that they've likely paid for if they can't have their way isn't the best way to solve the problem. I'm certainly not saying that gender segregated gyms are either, but telling people to suck it up and deal solves very little other than burying the problem for a while.
I know America is anal about welfare, when it isn't corporate welfare. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed that way. Besides, as a part of the larger problem, which is education costing anything at all, it'll be solved if the larger issue is solved. But that is yet again another thing America is anal about.
Kubra wrote:I mean sure, but having proper equipment is kinda more time efficient.Dark Triads wrote:It's not like you need equipment of any kind to do exercise either. If that still is a problem to someone, an increase or implementation of students' benefits for university students based on their and their parents' income should fix it.
Can't argue with that.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:35 pm1) Feminists desire to restrict the freedom of the male gender, to prioritise special treatment for the female gender.
2) Feminists deny restricting the freedom of the male gender, to prioritise special treatment for the female gender.
3) Feminists wonder why more people don't embrace feminism.
2) Feminists deny restricting the freedom of the male gender, to prioritise special treatment for the female gender.
3) Feminists wonder why more people don't embrace feminism.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:36 pmSettrah wrote:1) Feminists desire to restrict the freedom of the male gender, to prioritise special treatment for the female gender.
2) Feminists deny restricting the freedom of the male gender, to prioritise special treatment for the female gender.
3) Feminists wonder why more people don't embrace feminism.
#NotAllFeminists
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:48 pmA single hour for only women at a gym sounds and appears to be an inherently sexist position though it is benevolent. Now, if it was a schedule of 2 hour rotations between allowing men or women to work out (with equal number of rotations a week at the least) then I can see some equality.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:49 pmNo, that's called sexism.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:17 pmLongweather wrote:A single hour for only women at a gym sounds and appears to be an inherently sexist position though it is benevolent. Now, if it was a schedule of 2 hour rotations between allowing men or women to work out (with equal number of rotations a week at the least) then I can see some equality.
Or men and women can grow up, stop with petty childish divides, and just work out together in harmony.
What this is, is not equality, it is segregation.
Should we start segregating the time on a schedule that different races can work out? Because that's basically what this sounds like.
It's a very slippery slope of setting us back about 50 years that, for the sake of pampering first world women for a short while before the next radfem victim complex comes along, just isn't worth the repercussion.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:21 pmWartaria"="30574151 wrote:Random Fact: There is something called benevolent sexism.
It's a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist because it casts women as weak creatures in need of protection.
>Being chivalrous is sexist because it portrays women as weak
> Some women claim they need safe spaces and days off of school to cry because Donald Trump won.
To quote Dave Chappelle: "Chivalry is dead. And women killed it."
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:44 pmSettrah wrote:Longweather wrote:A single hour for only women at a gym sounds and appears to be an inherently sexist position though it is benevolent. Now, if it was a schedule of 2 hour rotations between allowing men or women to work out (with equal number of rotations a week at the least) then I can see some equality.
Or men and women can grow up, stop with petty childish divides, and just work out together in harmony.
What this is, is not equality, it is segregation.
Should we start segregating the time on a schedule that different races can work out? Because that's basically what this sounds like.
It's a very slippery slope of setting us back about 50 years that, for the sake of pampering first world women for a short while before the next radfem victim complex comes along, just isn't worth the repercussion.
True enough.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:23 pmMan the more outrage over the idea makes me more and more in favour of a women-only hour
On second thought I'm totally down for it, in every gym everywhere.
On second thought I'm totally down for it, in every gym everywhere.