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

[Camaalbakrius]

DEUS VULT INFIDEL

ALLAHU AKBAR!

DEUS VULT

Let's stop before the mods get angry

[FORMER HATOOTELAND]

ALLAHU AKBAR!

DEUS VULT

Let's stop before the mods get angry

ALLAHU AKBAR

yeah good idea

[Camaalbakrius]

DEUS VULT

Let's stop before the mods get angry

ALLAHU AKBAR

yeah good idea

I just realized: If we say Allahu Vult, then it essentially means the same things as Deus Vult.
Illuminati confirmed

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Of course I'm being sarcastic. You have such little faith. I'm Catholic myself. I don't believe in any feminist ideas at all. I think it's absurd

You have lightened the Benx's spirits.

She can't change her mind?

Did she change her mind?

[FORMER HATOOTELAND]

ALLAHU AKBAR

yeah good idea

I just realized: If we say Allahu Vult, then it essentially means the same things as Deus Vult.
Illuminati confirmed

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Horn+Illuminati+Theme+Song&&view=detail&mid=FC9848D49694AB3DB557FC9848D49694AB3DB557&FORM=VRDGAR

[Dark Triads]

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.

[Yootxtlalkaan]

"just go buy your own gym equipment/start your own gym"

peak bougie

[Dark Triads]

"just go buy your own gym equipment/start your own gym"

peak bougie

Think you're missing an 'r' there somewhere. I may be wrong though, in which case I don't get what you said.

[WaRtArIa]

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.

[Post War America]

Would you care to elaborate why you believe this?

it would be better

Why would it be any better?

[Post War America]

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).

[Goldwater Coast]

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.

I 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.

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?

Opponents of this proposal should be asking what they’re doing that is making their fellow classmates uncomfortable at the gym.[/b]

>>implying all opponents are responsible for unnerving the women. Nice.

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.

[Dark Triads]

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.

[Post War America]

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.

[The Forsworn Knights]

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.

[Kubra]

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 mean sure, but having proper equipment is kinda more time efficient.

[Dark Triads]

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.

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 mean sure, but having proper equipment is kinda more time efficient.

Can't argue with that.

[Settrah]

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.

[WaRtArIa]

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

[Longweather]

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.

[PaNTuXIa]

No, that's called sexism.

[Settrah]

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.

[Camaalbakrius]

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."

[Longweather]

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.

[Kubra]

Man 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.