Harvard’s Gym Closing Mistake [Updated]
See Update I and II below.
Among the many gyms at Harvard University, there is now one which for six out of the seventy hours its open, becomes “women’s only” in order to make it easy for conservative Muslim women to work out. Andrew Sullivan opposes it, calling it Sharia at Harvard. Mathew Yglesias isn’t particularly threatened.
First of all, Volokh doesn’t think it violates Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. Muslims are going to say: well that seals it. Its legal, we can do it. Sure, but just because something is legal doesn’t mean its right: it is legal to sentence a drug-addict to a longer term than a murderer. Legal? Yes. Is the law wrong? Yes. Therefore, do not wave “the law” in my face.
I oppose this measure to the extent that it engages in religious favoritism, because the intention of the rule is to benefit Muslim women.
If the university had simply said that the gym was closed in those hours to accommodate “women that do not feel comfortable working out in front of men” — that would be OK. This new classification would include women who might have been raped, assaulted, molested, or had other emotional issues that made it difficult for them to work out in male dominated spaces.
Muslims play a dangerous and stupid game when they start demanding things based on their Islam. Even the most conservative reading of classical Sharia reveals that Eunuchs were allowed to wander freely through the harem. In other words, a known homosexual man who has never had sex with a woman and never will, can make a powerful case under Sharia that he cannot be excluded from the gym hours. (Someone should try this just for fun — lets see if Harvard sets up an Islamic law tribunal!). If you really want to play this absurdist Islamic Law game further, then you have to ask about Lesbians. In most readings of Islamic Law it would be forbidden — haram — impermissible — unacceptable in toto — for a Muslim woman to take her clothes off in front of a known lesbian. But, do you think my good sisters are Harvard are banning known Lesbians, though? No, even though technically, they should be (and who knows, given some of the homophobia in our community, maybe down the road they will try). Do these examples seem extreme? What if a Christian men’s group wanted to block off a few hours at a gym every week where only certifiably straight men could work out?
This is why the founders of this country hoped that we could keep religion out of the public sphere, because religion opens up to an endless series of interpretations that ultimately just engender divisiveness.
Would it really have been all that difficult for Muslim women to get together with other girls that don’t feel comfortable in male dominated gyms to make a petition? It would have been very easy. The reason I know that is because every where I go — in fact the strip mall where I buy pizza — I see a Curves (a woman’s only gym). These Muslim girls at Harvard were lazy, and now the reputation of other Muslims — like mine — is paying the price, as if the rest of us promote gender-segregation (I oppose it). These girls couched their demand in religious terms, the press screamed “religious discrimination!” and now people are replying that the girls are being persecuted on the basis of their religion? I think that they themselves opened the door.
Next time they should consider relying on secular principles to advance their religious causes.
Discrimination on the basis of gender — which we as a society are generally OK with (think about female only locker rooms, bathrooms, etc) — is a form of discrimination too. I admit. But it isn’t religious discrimination, and that’s the point. The US has worked (and still needs to work) very hard to eradicate religious discrimination. This initiative, as it is now, goes against that. Frankly, I am not interested in seeing initiatives that embolden Christian organizations from taking over buildings for a few hours a day. “Yeah, guys, we need to ban all non-Christians from the theater three times a week, because we are recreating Charles Martel’s coronation and to be historically accurate we can’t have Jews and Muslims present!” Religion in public sphere = divisiveness. Muslims, please get this through your pretty little heads.
The problem for Harvard now is that if it goes back and says “well, we just want women’s only hours and this has nothing to do with religious accommodation” most of us are going to call it on that point since we know why the entire idea came up on the first place.
Having said that, the US legislature often passes legislation that gets struck down for being discriminatory, is allowed to rephrase its policy, and then get it passed. I think Harvard should be entitled to the same.
In conclusion: I feel for the sisters who have a hard time working out in front of blokes, but to achieve your ends using discrimination on the basis of religion, is bad; discrimination on the basis of gender, however, might have been acceptable, but to advance that argument probably would have required building a larger consensus at the university — this didn’t happen.
PS - By the way, are conservative Muslim men asking to not work out in gyms where hot women are? I think not. This is an indication that just within our conservative community there is an entrenched patriarchy (the sisters feel that they are only “good” if there are no men around, but the men couldn’t care less if they are in a place where half-naked women abound).
Update I:
It would appear that Muslim student behind this is OK with men only hours, too.
Ola Aljawhary ’09, an HIS board member who served as a liaison between her student group and the Women’s Center in coordinating these efforts, was very understanding of concerns about the discrepancy in resources. She told me that a push for men-only hours would be “perfectly justified,” emphasizing that she would not feel offended as a woman at all.
That Harvard’s misguided accommodationist policy may inadvertently divide as opposed to unite the diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds present in Cambridge is regrettable. More dangerously, it bolsters support for the idea that religious fundamentalism (particularly Islam) is incompatible with Western society. Harvard would do well not to make itself a breeding ground for this sort of feeling.
By the way, does the bold part mean the entire MSA was behind this?
Update II:
This Harvard University male points out something interesting:
Since this new policy’s inception, the number of women using the facility has not increased nor has there been an apparent rise in the number of religious users. The QRAC is underutilized as it is. During women only hours there are usually only two or three women there, leaving essentially the entire facility unused. Even if there is no one on the basketball court or the anaerobic machine area, which is generally the case during women’s hours, the QRAC still restricts access.
Do we know how the muslim women at Harvard presented this idea? Or do we rely on op eds to put their spin on it that muslims whined until the university accomodated them? I’d be interested in getting the info from those who made the request, and from those who granted it.
Rahma: That’s why we have blogs like this one, I’m hoping that as with the Canadian free speech issue, some of the Muslims come forward.
From my understanding, they went to the Women’s Studies Department — or something akin to it — and made a request to the Dean.
I think you also know that, precisely because there are lots of non-Muslim women who want the chance to exercise in a single-sex environment, they will take advantage of this. The new accommodation may have originated with the request of Muslim women, but I’ve seen no claim that the single-sex hour is Muslim-only. Sure, these women could join “Curves.” But why should they? They’re paying $30,000 a year or more to go to Harvard. That includes use of the gym.
Your logic is impeccable. Too bad none of it appears to exist at Harvard. I
Harvard spokesman Robert Mitchell stated that the policy went into effect after a group of six Muslim women asked the university for the special hours. That’s not the media - that’s the university’s formal statement.
Egypt Steve:
I agree, but the initiative seems not to have been put forward for “all women who want to exercise in a single sex environment.” It seems to have been put forward for “muslim women who want to exercise in a single sex environment (oh and if you are a non-Muslim woman I guess you can come too.” Do you see the distinction.
My questions is, do the men now get to ask for “men-only” hours? It would demonstrably unconstitutional if women are allowed women-only hours, but men are denied equal treatment.
Great article and comments.
This sort of stupidity can only exist in America at a University…
I posted on this a few days ago; I live in Boston so it was on the local news.
Here’s the funny thing. Religiously, Muslim guys could demand the same thing, traditionally being considered fitna to work out in front of women. It sets a bad precedent, as you pointed out, of people using religion to advance whatever they want.
OK, I see you wrote the exact same thing in the PS. Whatever, I’ll just use the rest of this comment to say: I agree, Harvard f-ed up.
Having been involved in the 06 Ellison campaign and seeing how statements and events were misconstrued by the media, I’ve grown skeptical of how highly charged events are portrayed (green campaign signs, it’s all about the jeehawd. Ah no, it’s more Wellstonian, k thx). That’s why I’m wary of calling these girls lazy or attributing nefarious motives where there may be none. If you do find some 1st hand material, do pass it along. I’ve searched and come up empty.
And as a muslim woman who works out, I don’t think it’s so much of a “OMG men will see me” type thing as a “gee, it would be nice to work out without having to wear hijab.” Ok, it is a OMG men will see me that keeps me away from latin dance aerobics at the Y, but it doesn’t stop me from weight lifting or swimming, just while wearing lots of clothes. I dream of the day when a true women only gym opens up in my area, not some lame Curves circuit workout or a WO gym with men freely allowed to come in for any number of reasons.
Rahma:
I regularly read stories about Muslim women in hijab winning various sporting competitions, etc. Then there is the whole Burkini thing where Muslim women can even be Lifeguards in Australia. How come no one is asking these women to be like those other hijabis? Are these girls wanting to wear abayas and jilbabs? I’m gonna give 2 to 1 odds that these Muslim girls are not American Muslims.
An American-Muslim girl, generally, has no issue going to co-ed gym in her hijab. I’m sure the other hijabis on this site will back me up.
Harvard gives special "females-only" gym time to appease Muslim girls
This is bullshit. Harvard is closing off one of its rec centers to male students at certain times to create “female only” gym times. The reason was cited as some Muslim students on campus (I think the news report says half a dozen) feel u…
In paragraph #6 of his column, Ali Eteraz wants Harvard to comply with the rule of “keeping religion out of the public sphere” as preferred by the Founding Fathers. But since Harvard is a private rather than a public school, isn’t Harvard exempt from that rule? Even if Harvard as a private school accepts Federal and state funding, can’t private schools still negotiate their own private discretionary powers with state and Federal authorities? How is Harvard’s supposed sectarian discrimination in allocating gym hours radically different from providing, in addition to other menus, a halal menu in Harvard student cafeterias (or refectories or whatever they’re called)? Isn’t providing a halal menu in addition to other menus simply allocating food resources in the student cafeteria, similarly to the way Harvard allocates gym hours? I don’t see what’s inherently wrong, whether in terms of the U.S. Constitution or as a matter of social policy, with private institutions providing reasonable accommodation for the needs and/or preferences of religious groups, particularly since such accommodation can be renegotiated as circumstances seem to require. The question is the reasonableness of a particular act of accommodation under the given circumstances.
I haven’t read Volokh’s article. But for private institutions to provide accommodation for various religious groups doesn’t seem to be inherently bad social policy or unconstitutional.
How do Muslim women handle the issue of male family escort when they go to class and to the gym?
James:
I don’t think you can analogize this to halal menus at cafeterias. I have seen those initiatives very up front and close. Anyone can come and eat at the halal deli. Not the case here.
Its not unconstitutional, I already conceded that. Its a values question question as opposed to a legal one (where there isn’t really a question since as you said its a private institution).
“How do Muslim women handle the issue of male family escort when they go to class and to the gym?”
If they grow up in a house where this is observed, they reject it when they get to college. Most Muslims don’t grow up with this, though.
Eteraz: thanks for the answer.
I want to know how Muslims managed to exist in the United States all of these years without all these accomodations they’re now asking for?
Actually I know the answer… the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups are using the Universities as a vanguard in thier goal towards a broader cultural transformation of the United States.
Forget about issues as technical as what is legal and what is constitutional… this is about normalizing the culture of Islamic law. And they’re starting in the one place stupid enough to unquestionably grant them their every desire.. the Universities… and why not.. isn’t that what Saudi Arabia bought them for?
I’d go one further and say that any Muslim woman who goes to Harvard doesn’t have this issue; their parents did send them away from the house, after all.
The most conservative ones, likely from recently immigrated families, commute to community college or state schools, or don’t even go to college.
Yeah Vince, it’s a big conspiracy.
Vince.
Harvard’s Saudi donation came from Alwaleed. He is a player-prince. He is the only one in Saudi Arabia who supports female airline pilots or in whose offices Muslim women don’t have to wear hijab.
Perhaps they’d rather work out without having to wear a burkini or a long sleeve tshirt, pants and a scarf?
As an american muslim who’s a hijabi, I have no qualms about doing most gym activities in a co-ed environment. It’s a stretch to find hijab suitable clothes that one can run a marathon in, but it’s do-able. But I’d sure as heck wouldn’t say no to a gym where I could work out in a tank top and shorts, or participate in a dance class without being leered at.
The face that Muslim women initiate women-only hours does not make it religious discrimination, provided that other women are not denied entry. It might have been a better look if the original petition had come from a cross-religious group of women, but I think it would just have been portrayed as the non-Muslim women being manipulated by the Muslims. Also, while there would be plenty of non-Muslim women who would use the women’s only hours, they don’t necessarily want to cop the flak that goes with being portrayed as radical feminist seperatists - believe me, when non-Muslim women try to initiate women’s only space, they cop just as much abuse (man-hating lesbians, etc etc).
Muslim women in my city initiated a women’s only swimming session, but non-Muslim women attend too, including one woman who wears a crucifix around her neck that is so heavy I don’t know why she doesn’t sink straight to the bottom of the pool. It is still mostly Muslim women who attend, but that’s because they are the ones who are most motivated to attend at an inconvient time at an out-of-the-way pool. Plenty of non-Muslim women have said that they’d like to see a similar programme at their local pool. But they haven’t initiated it, for whatever reason/s. And I wouldn’t try to drag them in to campaigning for it, because while they say they’d use such a service, I don’t have the sense that they want to campaign for it. They don’t need the hassle.
John, if enough men come forward to say that they don’t go to the local gym because they get sick of being sexually harrassed by women, then I’ll support your call for male-only hours. But so far, that isn’t a complaint that I’ve encountered.
“But I’d sure as heck wouldn’t say no to a gym where I could work out in a tank top and shorts, or participate in a dance class without being leered at.”
I would also like to find a gym where women do not constantly approach me and grab onto my biceps and say want to marry my brother in al islaaaam?
oh wait, I don’t have that issue.
Um, why does the only motivation have to be sexual harassment?
Why can’t it be, “We guys are more focused on working out when there aren’t women around” or “It’s just less crowded when women aren’t using the machines”?
Nattuk:
I will say that I am more focused when there are no women — or anyone around — but that hot guy in the mirror keeps staring at me and I get all melted.
Nattuk:
I will say that I am more focused when there are no women — or anyone around — but that hot guy in the mirror keeps staring at me and I get all melted.
By the way, I find it most ironic that I am sitting here responding to this thread in my gym clothes, delaying back and bi day.
Lucky you. Leering men are unfortunately a problem at my gym.
“This is why the founders of this country hoped that we could keep religion out of the public sphere, because religion opens up to an endless series of interpretations that ultimately just engender divisiveness.” Who hoped that? All they did was prohibit an “establishment” of religion at the federal level; that is, they precluded an official, national church. That’s it; that’s all.
“Leering men are unfortunately a problem at my gym.”
I hear they are also a great problem in Egypt and Pakistan. I think the problem is leering, and not the covering up of women so I don’t see how continuing to “protect” from the leer is going to make the leering go away. Next time a bloke leers, tell him that his penis is small.
Ali, I’m not a hijabi, but I have friends who are, who exercise in their headscarves and swim in their burkinis etc - but that doesn’t mean that they want to wear them all the time.
And even if you are wearing long loose pants, etc, working out on a machine flat on your back with your legs apart can still make you feel pretty vulnerable to the sleazebag who has positioned himself to get the best view.
Muslim Girl Power:
Most gyms place that thigh machine facing a wall where there is no mirror. Ask your gym to do the same.
I have no objection to Harvard setting aside a “women only” time in the gym, although I do think that they should also have a “men only” time as well. What is annoying is that I seriously doubt that Harvard would have considered the proposal if a group of Methodist or Mormon girls had made the request based on their desire for modesty. I don’t know if the girls made particular reference to their faith when they made the request, but I’m pretty sure that Harvard only complied out of some notion that respect for religion requires accomodating Islamic practices while ignoring everyone else.
Hey man, I’m no gym buff, but it kinda stinks when I go to the gym and want to do cardio and all the treadmills are occupied because girls are using them.
But God forbid if we should ask for men-only gym hours.
all of you need to go to the gym and work out. this blog commenting isn’t making any of you (us) more attractive. less talk more action.
“this blog commenting isn’t making any of you (us) more attractive.”
don’t need it. im at the apex of attractiveness.
i will do anything to not go to the gym today. including engage in repetitive acts of self-conceit (and self-deception).
Hey, I’m all for men’s gym hours, if it means I don’t have to listen to the meat heads grunting and dropping their weights in some attempt at appearing uber masculine.
May Jewish Orthodox women use the gym during the women-only hours?
Can we have male only hours for Muslim and Jewish Orthodox men as I believe they are required by their religions to avoid temptation?
I agree with you regarding the Harvard situation, but your knowledge of history is flawed. Like many, you insist that the Founders hoped to “keep religion out of the public sphere.” This is simply not true. Even the least religious of the Founders had no problem with religion being intertwined with every aspect of the public sphere. What they clearly and forcefully opposed was an enmeshing of the church’s political structure with that of the state, as was (and officially still is) the case in Europe. By today’s standards, the degree to which the United States was a quasi-official “Christian nation” in its early days would shock many today. I’m not saying, by the way, that we should return to this — I’m only saying that that’s the way things were.
So they can reject the male family escort at will, once in college?
What prevents their rejecting the rest of this sexist and discriminatory inonsense at the same time? And why should Harvard have to discriminate in their favor?
“dropping their weights in some attempt at appearing uber masculine.”
im not a meat head but we dont drop weights b/c its uber masculine. it has to do with the fact that weights are heavy. and we lift heavy weights b/c cosmo told us to. im generalizing but if you think that women are not complicit in creating this whole macho male gym culture you are sorely mistaken. watch Fight Club.
“So they can reject the male family escort at will, once in college?”
I don’t any more know any Muslim women who abided by the male escort stuff. Frankly if you grow up with the male escort thing you aren’t ever going to get out of it. Its an extreme form of social control, limited in practice and thus the rest of us Muslims haven’t seen it. It does exist in greater degree in rural parts of the Muslim world though.
Ali, that comment on how to deal with leering men is a bit facile. You think women don’t have a long list of comeback lines like that? We’ve had years to work on them!
But we don’t always use them. Because it isn’t always safe. Sometimes the loud, sharp comeback line embarasses the leering male into retreat.
But sometimes it goads him into reasserting his rightful superiority. A man who feels that his masculinity has been called into question can be a dangerous thing. On a university campus, you’re likely to encounter him again. It’s not likely that he’ll respond with physical violence, but he can do a good job of being menacing and scary nonetheless (especially if his friends join in).
“Even the least religious of the Founders had no problem with religion being intertwined with every aspect of the public sphere.”
Ben:
That’s because they were not really religious. Things have changed today. Compared to the founders most of America is more religious, not less.
You really think Jefferson today can get away saying the things about Christ that he got away with then?
PS. I hadn’t read the line about facing the gym machine to the wall when I wrote my last comment,(thanks for the tip) - I was referring to “what to say to leering men”.
muslimgirlpower
And even if you are wearing long loose pants, etc, working out on a machine flat on your back with your legs apart can still make you feel pretty vulnerable to the sleazebag who has positioned himself to get the best view.
Then, guess what? Stay home. But no instead.. the entire society has to work around the fact that you dont like being stared at. If that’s the case, get a little home work out thingiee and stay concealed at home.
Everyone looks at everyone.. you’re in public!
When is this nonsense going to stop. A half dozen Muslim women have a hang up, and all the guys have to alter their schedules?
Maybe we should have Non-Muslim hours so that we dont have to have anxiety that a Muslim might be in there to blow up a bomb. .. I’m sure you can understand our concern and be sensitive to us.. we are the stated primary target of Islamic-based terrorist groups… it’s uncomfortable to be there all sweaty and vulnerable thinking that if we were to die how embarassing it would be because we didn’t wash our jockstrap from the time before.
Muslim girl power:
My aunt was once groped in a bazaar in Pakistan. She grabbed the guy and slapped him on the face.
I have a friend who essentially had to run over guys to avoid getting raped.
My point is that ultimately women have to protect themselves from evil dudes just as regular dudes have to protect themselves from evil dudes.
You don’t think we males have been bullied? Living in fear is not the solution. I don’t advocate violence, but I do advocate taking a firm stance against those who harass you. The thing about taking a firm stance, though, is that you have to continue to have the courage to take that stance. In my life, the only time I have seen women (and many men) “free” themselves — whether its politically, or if its daily life — has been when they asserted themselves. Creating a female only gym because you fear men is perpetuation of fear.
“Maybe we should have Non-Muslim hours so that we dont have to have anxiety that a Muslim might be in there to blow up a bomb.”
Vince, your statement is, I don’t know, a wee bit over the top, but actually, many Muslims would have no problem with giving non-Muslims “their space” in return for having “Muslim space” so your essential threat is not going to be all that successful.
You should see for example the instance in Malaysia where at a club Muslims were told to separate themselves on the basis of gender while non-Muslims could freely hobnob. Its in my Malaysia article at the Guardian.
well now dont u have an answer for everything
i honestly don’t see the big deal about this. doesn’t religious accomodation figure in anywhere into your politics, ali? why automatically decry this as discrimination? i understand that the line between the two is blurry, but to me that’s the point: how to strike a balance between a gesture of goodwill/validation and favoritism/neglect.
Remember - this is a discussion about values, not legal/constitutional issue. Anyone on this tread belive that is a group of conservative / evangelical females had asked for the same treatment they would have been accomodated?
Yeah, it’s over the top… I was trying to convey the emotions that these sorts of divisions are creating, so I poured on the drama. I wasn’t being sincere.. I don’t advocate forbidding anyone. All I would like to see is the same standard applied to everyone.
I know we’re in agreement on that point. you expressed it very well in a non-emotional way in your article.. I chose histrionics.
Ali, I’ve given a good hard front kick to a guy who tried to attack me (in Pakistan). I’ve yelled at countless other men for leering at me, grabbing my bum, etc. I know how to defend myself, although I’ve never been physically strong and these days I’m quite physically frail for medical reasons. But I don’t live in fear. I go places, alone, that many men would think twice about.
But part of knowing how to defend yourself is also knowing that sometimes, it’s best not to escalate things. For the 5 minute satisfaction of putting a leering male in his place, it’s not always worth the follow-up recriminations. You have to rely on instinct to know how to respond in any particular given situation.
And I don’t see why women should always have to deal with it themselves. I don’t believe in gender segation on any large scale. But a lot of public space is so male-dominated as to not be gender integrated in any meaningful sense. A few women only gym sessions seems a reasonable enough accomodation to me. Or we could just fight back with decor - paint all the gym equipment in girlie colours to drive out the straight men.
I’m well aware the young men are actually more likely to become victims of violent crime than young women (sadly, most young men aren’t aware of this, and aren’t conditioned to spot potential danger the way that women do). But the dynamics are not quite the same in terms of the harrassment issue.
To those of you in the United States who think these exclusionary policies of “accomodations” is no big deal.. I ask you.. get a US Coin and look at it.
Do you notice the words “E Pluribus Unum?” It served the US well for nearly 200 years until this Leftist madness of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness made everyone stupid.
Seriously, you guys are arguing about Muslims making a little headway in this country???? This is exactly why Muslims are in the position they are today, one group makes a little progress and the other starts wining. And Ali, leering is a problem but how exactly do you propose to get rid of it, can you stop all men from looking??? NO, isn’t that why the hijab came around??? It’s not as readily applicable as allocating time for females only. Come on guys why can’t we just support or sisters and let them work out, after all it might just benefit us one day.
Ali, it also seems as though you’re shifting the grounds of your argument somewhat. Initially, you seemed to be saying that the problem was that the Muslim students didn’t enlist non-Muslim women to petition alongside them (so their petition was purely religiously based).
But in your recent comments it sounds as though you’re objecting to the idea of women’s gym sessions as such. Could you clarify?
“Or we could just fight back with decor - paint all the gym equipment in girlie colours to drive out the straight men.”
I’m just thinking out loud but logically if you painted everything girlie, this would increase the number of women present and thereby a boon for us straight men, at least the ones that are secure enough to work out on a pink bench with baby blue dumbbells.
In the interest of full disclosure, Mr. nalightning is a Pakistani meathead, a spitting image of Pakistani manliness (hair and all), whom I know personally.
As opposed to my scrawny little ass.
No homo.
“You should see for example the instance in Malaysia where at a club Muslims were told to separate themselves on the basis of gender while non-Muslims could freely hobnob. Its in my Malaysia article at the Guardian.”
I read that and I laughed for a moment.
But then I realized that it could go two ways.
One - the unmixing Muslims may get jealous and then try to leave Islam, but apostasy is not allowed. That will breed longing and self-hatred in their hearts, driving them toward extremism.
You see, they would have to prove their piety to overcome their weakness as humans.
Two - the unmixing Muslims may get jealous and then decide that they would rather not be jealous, so therefore mixing, even if you are not Muslim must be banned. This will breed hatred of those who want to mix, and drive the Muslims toward extremism.
You see, they can only be pious if everyone is pious with them.
Is it a catch 22?
Maybe.
“And Ali, leering is a problem but how exactly do you propose to get rid of it, can you stop all men from looking??? NO, isn’t that why the hijab came around???”
No, hijab didn’t come around to stop men from looking. What is this madness? Hijab came around to obey Allah’s directive for modesty. I hate to break it to you but just b/c a girl is wearing hijab doesn’t mean she won’t get stared at. You clearly weren’t paying attention to this guy going off about this precise point:
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/09/22/to-my-dear-hijabi-sisters/
“And Ali, leering is a problem but how exactly do you propose to get rid of it, can you stop all men from looking??? NO, isn’t that why the hijab came around???”
Yes, it is better to force women to wear oppressive clothing until they are formless non-human entities than to teach men to treat them with respect.
Good idea that.
“Ali, it also seems as though you’re shifting the grounds of your argument somewhat. Initially, you seemed to be saying that the problem was that the Muslim students didn’t enlist non-Muslim women to petition alongside them (so their petition was purely religiously based).
But in your recent comments it sounds as though you’re objecting to the idea of women’s gym sessions as such. Could you clarify?”
No, we moved to theory, that’s all.
gfbook, i am reading this issue as one of values. i agree that evangelical women would not have been granted the same concession (though nothing would stop them from forming a coalition with the muslim women), though i think that says more about that not being a significant cultural claim for that group compared with muslim women. also, i think you’d need a legal lens to argue about that being discriminatory. like i said, it’s dicey territory.
Re the “can you be uncovered in front of gay women issue” - theologically I wouldn’t know and dont’ really care. There is an ocean pool in Sydney that has been women’s only since the 1860s http://www.nswoceanbaths.info/pools/b043.htm. It’s now very popular both with gay woman and Muslim women.
Again leaving religious requirements out of it, I’ve never felt leered at by gay women (maybe a bit of friendly checking out) so I don’t mind being scantily dressed in front of them. Looking isn’t the same as leering - looking in my definition allows you to look back, and it’s responsive to the other person - if they don’t reciprocate, the gaze moves on. Leering is done despite the discomfort of the other person - in fact, unsettling the other person is often the intention.
“I’m just thinking out loud but logically if you painted everything girlie, this would increase the number of women present and thereby a boon for us straight men, at least the ones that are secure enough to work out on a pink bench with baby blue dumbbells.”
I’ve heard of straight men attending ballet classes for that reason, but not in large numbers!
link to the sydney baths didn’t work and I’m posting it again, because those ocean swimming pools really are gorgeous and worth travelling a long way to experience! There are plenty that are open to both men and women.
http://www.nswoceanbaths.info/pools/b043.htm
Hey look, this is pretty simple.
Muslims, Whites, Lesbians and Druids…ALL don’t get special consideration with public or private community services or property.
If muslim women want private gym time, they can build thier own gym or rent one. Totally their problem based on their own needs (legitimate or loony).
Secular, open societies cannot accomodate special needs that cost others their free access to the same resource.
End of story.
If women as a block decide they need private gym time, this becomes a general need and the muslim element of it is just a red herring.
Another Eteraz stirring non-issue.
i think one has to be careful applying a discrimination analysis to groups that have been historically discriminated against. that said, harvard is not the government and as a private institution it can make whatever rules it wants. that it wants to appear tolerant or culturally sensitive doesn’t bother me, but it’s dicey if other groups start asking for accomodations that unduly burden everyone else.
women-only hours at a gym isn’t burdensome to me. in fact, it’s consumer savvy, and universities are driven by their student-consumers. gyms with women-only sections, like the new yorks sports club, are what a lot of women want. sometimes, it’s okay to get looked at it in the gym, especially if the guy is cute. sometimes, you just want to be alone (gaze-free) and sweat.
Could we straights get a few hours where we wouldnt have to be around Andrew Sullivan and his hangers on.
Seems every other group has their time.
seriously said: i think one has to be careful applying a discrimination analysis to groups that have been historically discriminated against
Which University are you attending?
The Muslim Girl behind the push is Ok with men only hours too. See Update I above.
From Harvard Crimson:
“Ola Aljawhary ’09, an HIS board member who served as a liaison between her student group and the Women’s Center in coordinating these efforts, was very understanding of concerns about the discrepancy in resources. She told me that a push for men-only hours would be “perfectly justified,” emphasizing that she would not feel offended as a woman at all.
That Harvard’s misguided accommodationist policy may inadvertently divide as opposed to unite the diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds present in Cambridge is regrettable. More dangerously, it bolsters support for the idea that religious fundamentalism (particularly Islam) is incompatible with Western society. Harvard would do well not to make itself a breeding ground for this sort of feeling.”
Congratulations! You’ve managed to effectively reinstitute segregation. But it’s VOLUNTARY - so that’s okay!
So what’s next? Black-only hours? White-only? Christian-only hours? Jew, Hindu, and Buddist? How about atheist-only time? Geek-time, so they won’t be intimidated by jocks?
Do you really not see the direction this is headed? When you accomodate ONE special interest group, you set a precedent where you MUST accomodate ALL. You don’t have a reason to refuse - it’s been established that all it takes is 6 people asking for special time.
Way to go. Let’s see what we can do to balkanize society as a whole just a bit more!
We’ve just report
the top blogs of the day
Regarding update II, scrap the whole thing then. It all becomes a non-issue then.
The two or three women who use the gym during those hours can find an alternative.
“That Harvard’s misguided accommodationist policy may inadvertently divide”
I thought the entire point of this stupid policy was to divide?
Mr. Eteraz says so blithely: “Discrimination on the basis of gender — which we as a society are generally OK with… ”
No.
In fact the “transgendered” are now pursuing and gaining the right to self-identify. So you cannot deny access to a transgendered male during a women-only period, without crossing a different victim class.
“If the university had simply said that the gym was closed in those hours to accommodate “women that do not feel comfortable working out in front of men” — that would be OK. This new classification would include women who might have been raped, assaulted, molested, or had other emotional issues that made it difficult for them to work out in male dominated spaces.”
Substitute “women” and “men” for “whites” and “blacks.” Still agree? I hope not.
That it is happening at Harvard tells you much about that bloated, moral trainwreck of an institution.
Why stop there, Ali? Why not have gyms for men only?
Why stop at gyms? How about entire facilities for men and women?
If Islam is so important to these backward androids, they should relocate to an Islamic Republic, not demand accommodations from the majority in a secular republic.
The dhimmitude of the West continues.
I’m not surprised that the Muslim women who complained are just fine with male-only hours as well. In fact, I would expect them to *want* a move like that.
Because that furthers the imposition of Muslim practices on the general public who are not Muslim. It institutionalizes a set of customs and values that are foreign to this country, on behalf of a very small minority of the population: by estimate, 1.3 out of 303.5 million at the moment.
It is telling that there has been no response to the several comments that this action would never have been take by Harvard if it had been Orthodox Jewish women or evangelical Christians who asked for it. I suspect that that is in fact true. And therein lies the problem I have with it. It represents *special* attention to the demands of some Muslims at the expense of the rest of us. Not a broad response to a variety of people, but a special response to those who wish to be treated specially.
There’s a telling contrast between this incident at Harvard and Muslims at West Point, the US Military Academy. For some time, the small number of Muslims at the Academy (both US Army faculty, cadets and those from overseas) made private accomodation for a place in which to worship. As that community grew it was time for a dedicated space - and so the Academy created one, just as there are Catholic, Protestant and Jewish chapels. The number of Buddhists and Hindus at the Academy varies but so far has either been. zero in any given year or a tiny number As a result that there is no formal Buddhist chapel or Hindu temple- but those who practice those religions are sponsored in spending time at houses of meditation or worship nearby.
A very tiny group DEMANDING that they be given special treatment inevitably - and rightly - generates resentment. On the other hand, those who signal that they support the wider culture and society while also pursuing their religious customs and beliefs quietly and without a fuss … well, such people have historically been given great support and tolerance in this country.
“Secular, open societies cannot accomodate special needs that cost others their free access to the same resource.”
Actually we do all the time when it comes to the mentally and physically handicapped. If the muslim women of Harvard would just admit that they are, indeed, mentally and physically handicapped all would be cool.
And this latest little whine of theirs certainly indicates they are deeply, deeply handicapped.
Is anyone going to try to answer Acad Ronin’s comment posted at 5:29? Anyone?
Ronin:
“May Jewish Orthodox women use the gym during the women-only hours?
Can we have male only hours for Muslim and Jewish Orthodox men as I believe they are required by their religions to avoid temptation?”
I don’t think they are limiting as to what kind of women can go to gym.
As to second question, see Update II, the girls supporting this venture seem to be support the idea for conservative men to have their own gym hours.
The irony for me is that I perfectly understand - as many Americans might not - a deeply rooted bodily modesty. I grew up near the Amish, some of whom were in my family, and I have quietly pious orthodox Jewish friends. I tend to dress a lot more conservatively and modestly than many women of my age and background, although not distinctively as those groups do.
I have zero problem with that modesty. It’s fine with me if one chooses it.
What is NOT fine with me is a demand that the vast majority of the culture make specially accomodations for it on the basis of convenience. And that IS the argument that muslimgirl and the Harvard students are making, yes? That it is inconvenient for them to exercise in the gym without these hours.
Because if the argument is, instead, that we OWE them this separation then my opposition becomes an order of magnitude stronger, right now.
Discrimination on any level is wrong. One certainly cannot embrace gender discrimination any more than one can support religious discrimination which in this particular case Harvard is doing. I rather enjoyed your comparisons of the notions of right, wrong, legal, and subsequent penal actions.
America is beginning to suffer growing pains as a direct result of compromise. The U.S. Constitution was structured in such a way that ’some’ compromise is healthy; however, when we look to accommodate everything for everyone, invariably the standard will be lowered.
Nice piece. CHEERS!
jp schilling
You can visit, we are going concern now. But today we have generated
a more pro top blogs daily report . Now I’ve just posted the newest report , see and reply me some comments. Thanks.
[...] a Muslim who’s trying to speak out for Democracy, human rights, and respect. As such he has a good write up of Harvard’s new women only gym hours implemented specifically for Muslim [...]
[...] more [...]
I’m sorry but this is kind of twisted. Afraid of being leered at? I’ve been leered at more in libraries than gyms. In fact, in gyms men barely pass me a second glance (I like to think thats because they’re gay, but they’re simply more interested in checking out how much the guy next to them is benching rather than watch some hijabi strut her stuff.) This obsession that men are constantly sexualising you, the woman, is way too self-centric and even self-flattering.
Most women claim to wear the hijab to stave off unwanted attention; but come on, you know you get more looks with it, especially in the West. And more ironically, it seems to be making a statement like: “I am a sexual object. And you can’t have me.” Similary, these segregating acts have the opposite effect of drawing more attention your way, and making men exotify you (like men do convent school girls) - “oh who’re those shy, untouched houris doing cardio in there right now… may I not get a glimpse, if not taste, of this forbidden fruit?”
This gender segregation stuff can be a tough issue for all women, Muslim and non-Muslim. Personally, I have been harassed, stalked, groped, and physically assaulted by random dudes. Sometimes, I really want to go to the gym and know that there won’t be some dude hanging out there, trying to get with me, interrupting my work-out, and freaking me out, if not worse. I feel safer working out around other women, and this is a learned response.
Having said that, I also don’t want to make myself invisible. I get very angry when I think about having to accommodate some pervert by segregating myself - HE is the pervert, HE should be held responsible, not me. I kind of feel like segregation can really coddle the perverts, and reinforce the notion that a woman who does wind up in the same space as the pervert is fair game. I mean, she didn’t segregate herself! She was asking for it!
It just sucks either way you look at it. I guess if you’re a conservative Muslim woman, you also get the added bonus of sweating in your hijab
:(
Or, actually, “conservative” is probably the wrong word to use here. Since I personally know plenty of Muslim women who identify as “liberal,” and wear hijab. D’oh.
What are “conservative” Muslim women doing in a university, much less a university gym anyway?
Shouldn’t they be cooking for their man and caring for his children?
[...] Ali Eteraz reports: ‘Among the many gyms at Harvard University, there is now one which for six out of the seventy hours its open, becomes “women’s only” in order to make it easy for conservative Muslim women to work out. Andrew Sullivan opposes it, calling it Sharia at Harvard. Mathew Yglesias isn’t particularly threatened.’ First of all, Volokh doesn’t think it violates Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. Muslims are going to say: well that seals it. Its legal, we can do it. Sure, but just because something is legal doesn’t mean its right: it is legal to sentence a drug-addict to a longer term than a murderer. Legal? Yes. Is the law wrong? Yes. Therefore, do not wave “the law” in my face. [...]
I dont see anything wrong with it. Its a couple of hours, three days a week. Not to mention these hours are not very popular hours for most college students. Let the women be comfortable, everyone has the right to work out. Not to mention there are plenty of other gyms that men could still go to during these hours. I say just let it be, it is not that big of a deal.
“If the university had simply said that the gym was closed in those hours to accommodate “women that do not feel comfortable working out in front of men” — that would be OK.”
Really? Would it? Is this not simply a form of discrimation, specifically sexism? I don’t like men around me, for whatever reason, so I can feel ok in not only stating so, but in getting them banned them from a common area.
How about black people who don’t “feel comfortable working out in front of white people”? How about Jews who don’t “feel comfortable working out in front of Arabs or Muslims”? I am sure that there are plenty of people who are uncomfortable around other groups of people to the point of wanting to exlude them from public areas, but it seems to me that was universally viewed as being bigotry and prejudice, and not something we do in America. When did this change?
“This new classification would include women who might have been raped, assaulted, molested, or had other emotional issues that made it difficult for them to work out in male dominated spaces.”
This part is an attempt to appeal via emotion and sympathy to bolster an otherwise indefensible policy, and in doing both continues the bigotry and moves into the illogical.
1) It views all men as rapists or molesters, a stereotype which would not be tolerated for most groups. Rapists predominately have a penis, all men have a penis, so all men are a threat to me?
2) This emotional “point” could be used to support the banning of all sorts of other groups as mentioned above. There are white people who have been mugged by blacks, and blacks who have been attacked by whites, so why can’t either group try to ban the other because of their fears? Jews and Arabs are in constant conflict, at least in the Middle East, so can’t students of both stripes ban the other?
3) Women molest, assault, and even sometimes rape, too, or has no one heard this? They even molest and sexually abuse those of their own gender. Do they not count? Can women who were molested or assaulted by other women not then claim they need “private time” in the gym, so NO ONE can intimidate them?
Sorry if this post seems overly arch, but I just CANNOT believe the way this has not been thought through by many people.
We either judge people as individuals, or we don’t. If we are going to allow and encourage discrimination in one form, then understand it will have to be accepted in others.
Brian also makes a great point; If anyone is so offended by the presence of men in a gym, why are they attending a University and classes where they are surrounded by them? There are WOMAN ONLY colleges in the nation, and there are some which are predominately female. Why would these women not choose these institutions for their education if they are so concerned about exposure to men? Are they not exposed to sweaty men in tank tops and shorts playing football or frisby on the campus?
The answer is that exposure to men is secondary issue. The real issue is trying to force one’s view and will on others.
GP
[...] we linked to Confused’s protest against the new Harvard gym policy. Ali Eteraz presents his argument against the policy, from the perspective of a Muslim. [Hat tip: [...]
This decision has been defend on the basis of tolerance and respect. For example, Ola Aljawhary, a Muslim student, claims that “The majority should be willing to compromise,” she said. “I think that’s just basic courtesy. We must show tolerance and respect for all others.”
In this case, what people are expected to tolerate is the religious beliefs of the women in question. Some Muslims believe, in varying degrees, that women must be covered in public. Since working out while fully covered would be uncomfortable, the women claim that they need to be able to work out without men being around. Since it is based on their religious beliefs, the view is that others must be tolerant of this and allow them to act in accord with their faith.
This does have a certain plausibility. Part of having a fair and just society involves respecting the views and legitimate needs of others and accommodating such needs. Tolerance is, of course, generally a virtue and is also vital in maintaining a civil society. Tolerance helps reduce conflict and allows for people who disagree to get along. Obviously, the claim that we ought to be tolerant and respectful is a moral claim and, as such, rests on the assumption that there are moral distinctions between what is good and what is evil.
While tolerance and respect are laudable, there must be limits to them. This is because to tolerate and respect all would entail drawing no distinctions between what is ethical and what is not ethical. Presumably, if male students said that they were being disrespected by being barred from the gym , then Ajawhary would not endorse granting them the respect and tolerance she claims for her view. She could, of course, reply that their request would fail to respect her view. They could, of course, make the same reply to her.
This leads to the obvious question about what should be respected and tolerated. Suppose that a group of Catholics claimed that the availability of birth control at the university clinic showed disrespect for their religion and demanded that campus be rid of such things. Given the decision made in favor of the Muslim women, then it would seem that Harvard should yield to this. After all, the basic principle seems to be the same. Those who wish to use birth control might object that this would interfere with their rights-just as men can argue that Harvard’s decision violates their rights. Obviously, Harvard would never make such a concession in regards to birth control at the behest of Catholics.
As another scenario, imagine that a group of white women claim that it goes against their deeply held belief to have black men gaze upon them. They cover themselves, as Muslim women do, but want to work out in the gym. Imagine that they go to the administration at Harvard and insist that they be given black free hours at a gym in order to work out, with their “white skin unsullied by the gaze of black men.” I think it is clear that Harvard would (rightfully) reject such a request as being racist.
But, imagine what one of the women, let us call her Betty, might say in return: Harvard allowed men to be excluded by women and hence the same principle should apply. This principle, as Betty would see it, is that one group can exclude another group from access to university gyms based on ethical or religious beliefs.
The university would probably reply back that in the case of Islam, there is a long cultural tradition, that Islam is an established religion, and so forth. The university cannot, obviously, just accommodate any belief system that people happen to have.
Betty would no doubt reply back that exclusion based on race has a long cultural tradition, that race based views are well established, and so forth.
In reply, the university would probably be forced to claim that her view is racist and racism is wrong.
Betty could, of course, reply back in all candor that the university seems to have no problem with sexism against men and hence it would have little moral ground left on which to stand while they balk at racism.
As I see it, excluding men to accommodate the sexism of Islam would be morally on par with excluding black men based on racist beliefs.
It might be argued that we should tolerate this aspect of Islam because it is a religion. However, this hardly seems to be a justification and, if it is, it would also apply to religious based racism. Sexism and racism, if evil, are evil regardless of what is used to “justify” them.
A second defense of this decision was offered by Ibrahim Hooper, speaking on behalf of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. His defense is that commercial women only gyms exist.
He is right, they do. However, his defense seems to be the fallacy of appeal to common practice. The mere fact that a practice is a common one hardly makes it right. After all, feminists claim that women are routinely paid less than men-but it hardly follows that this is right.
Exclusion based on gender certainly seems to be sexism. Well, at least when it is women being excluded. When men are excluded, then the practices are often defended. In the case of women only gyms, the appeal is generally made to the fact that women need men to be excluded because of relevant differences between men and women. If this is acceptable, then this should (on the basis of consistency) justify men excluding women or whites excluding minorities provided that they can come up with some similar reason. However, this seems to be morally questionable at best. If women are entitled to equal treatment, then so too are men. To support this, it is easy enough to dust off the old feminist arguments about the injustice of gender based exclusion and apply them now to men and not women. Oddly enough, most feminists are oddly silent when it is men being excluded. One might suspect that their commitment is not to equality but perhaps to something else.
I would like to remind the other gentle readers that sexism is, at heart, a relation of power. While men can experience sexism on an individual level, as a group men have more social power (higher wages, political power, patriarchal family structures, et al). On the whole, I think gender exclusive events can help groups to do things they wouldn’t otherwise, from women’s health’s circles to single-gender gym locker rooms. The pool in NY near where I stayed had a women’s hour geared toward the Orthodox Jewish community, though any woman could swim during those hours.
However, the issue here seems to be one of framing. The idea that this is justified on purely religious grounds has rankled many. But I wonder if it makes a difference that Harvard (high profile aside) is a private institution. Would this issue not perhaps be more crucial if it happened at a public university? Other private colleges have gone the opposite way, in small degrees, e.g. Oberlin having co-ed showers and toilets in some of their dorms.
Incidentally I attended a public college in Sweden where the bathrooms were all unisex, and if they had had locker rooms, they would have been too. Perhaps American public universities should, in the name of progress and equality, make all toilets and locker rooms co-ed.
I say we should stop having female sports teams, female bathrooms and female-only dorms. That way everybody’s equal, right?
It’s been an interesting debate here in Cambridge. What I find surprising is the tolerance with which the move has been met around campus. Muslims are more upset about it than a lot of people I’ve spoken to.
But as a Muslim female affiliate of Harvard, I have to say the move means little to me. Hijab is my choice, and I don’t let it stop me from doing whatever the hell I need or want to do - sports, exercise, whatever.
This notion that because the University is private , that it can discriminate based on sex is a novel notion to me.
So if I open a business and decide that the French bother me, I could hang a sign on my store front saying “No French Allowed?” (I’m assuming national origin has the same legal protections as gender)
I don’t think we can equate separate facilities for men and women with separate facilities for blacks and whiltes. After all, if Harvard had a “blacks only gym time” would Senator Obama be allowed to attend since his mother is white? From a biological perspective, races are not as distinct as genders- except for the rare hermaphrodite, people are male or female, not 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 female.
Since there are clear distinctions, and since many men and women prefer single sex facilities for showers, toilets, etc., it doesn’t seem inherently discriminatory to set aside some times for women only and for men only in the gym, as well as ample time when the gym is open to anyone. This is not that different from “adult only” swim time at many community pools, or kiddie pool areas that are restricted to children under 7.
The problem is that rather than suggesting the girls circulate a petition among the students to demonstrate support for the proposal, or place a proposition on the ballot in the next student election, Harvard approached this as a religious issue, creating an appearance of favoritism for one group over others.
How incredible that one group can cause an entire other group to be excluded. You’re in public!!! Wow! Segregation all over again! If you want to air your view to the President of Harvard, her email is
President@Harvard.edu
asalaam alaikum warahmat Allah wabarakatu,
think i was started with a random search for boston weather..no idea how the heck i got here, but i grew up in boston..and yeah, there is definintly an odd feeling for a muslimah wearing hijab to workout infront of men..Allah gives us 2 reasons for hijab in case some of u forgot..1. so that we won’t be harrassed-aka..to be respected, and 2. so that we will stand out!! to be known as women who believe and practice the word of Allah. for the pricey tutition of harvard…accommodations should be made for sure for all women. because it is in a woman’s fitrah to want her privacy while moving and shaking!! and about a gym with men’s hours only, why not?? what’s the big deal? speaking as an american muslimah living now in saudi..madinah munawarra specifically, i’d have to say that what should move a muslim in accomplishing anything is there hope for Allah’s mercy and fear towards His wrath..also known as Taqwa…
“An American-Muslim girl, generally, has no issue going to co-ed gym in her hijab. I’m sure the other hijabis on this site will back me up.”
i won’t be one of them, and there are many..maybe most who will not as well!!
we should be learning more about what is acceptable towards Allah..rather trying to prove our point, we should be explain in all in the context of halal & haram..and if we can’t do that or don’t feel comfortable with that-well that just proves how much more we need to learn. because concepts in secularism can actually be attributed to islam, but concepts of islam only looks bizarre in a sea of secularism.. Allah knows best.
Ali, in this instance I agree with you.
However in the previous post you spoke of laws that are neutral. In this instance the neutrality of the law allowed a private university to accommodate religious concerns of their students. The college should be commended, rather than ridiculed in this age of Islamophobes, however, if more groups arise seeking similar accommodations is should be stopped altogether for all groups.
It seems neutral laws are no longer sufficient for you as in this instance as you seem to want anti-Islamic accommodation, you do realize if some one complained so bitterly as you do but about accommodating orthodox Jews they could be called anti-Semitic and if it is a Jew complaining they could be called self-hating Jews.
Let’s looks at this in a proper context though, one university accommodating six of its student’s religious concerns and Universities nation-wide allowing admittance quotas for minorities in some instance over students with better grades. Kind of make your point seem exactly what it is, PETTY.
Hey while I’m at it,
Schools nation-wide get Christmas and Easter off and several Jewish holidays off, in fact on some of these holidays the government is closed for business, and all of us non-Christians and Jews have to eat it, it affects the whole country. This negates nothing from me, my family or my community. In school I’ve seen Jews get exempted from taking test which were scheduled for Friday and get a special day aside for them to take a test.
As Muslim, my response isn’t these Jews are trying to set up Talmudic laws or they’re imposing their laws on everyone else, my response is, more power to them, and in some instances I may want to use they that as leverage for my community as well, as many minorities have used the African-American advances as a models for them.
But God-forbid if one university in the country accommodates six of its female students for 6 hours out of 70, Hell knows no fury like an Ali scorned.
As the anti-establishment clause of the constitution, is not just against Islam, as Ali’s weekly ranting and raving would indicate but against the establishment of Judaism, Christianity and all religion as well, and the accommodations Islam receives is minute compared to the formers.
I must respectfully disagree with Ali.
An individual request for accommodation isn’t automatically invalid just because that request is motivated by an individual’s Islamic beliefs. Regardless of motive, we should accommodate requests by individuals–so long as that accommodation doesn’t infringe on the rights of others or eviscerate the core of the activity in question.
http://blog.nonick.org/2008/03/reasonable-accomodation.html
http://blog.nonick.org/2008/03/harvards-non-mistake.html
Funny, we went through this whole thing last year here at the University of Toronto. Good times.
Over here, the women demanding the workout hours (Muslim and non) were okay with the idea of male-only hours too. A year later and no men have stepped forward and demanded them.
I don’t see why positing their request for women-only hours as a gender issue would be better than the way they posited it… as a religious issue. It’s both. Do Americans not believe in religious accomodation?
I just don’t think these different cultures of people can just change our laws to benefit them. They make us Americans look real stupid. I am really pissed off about these Muslim girls having their time only for the gym. They could stay at home and work out and not disturbing other people’s time. I am a girl, but I am not that selfish toward guys. I think these guys would be ticked off like anybody else. I hope they can do something against this.
dee, you don’t get it..its not about selfishness, its about modesty which many americans can appreciate and even like for themselves-maybe you are not one of them? no need to get all distraught about it, just get informed and maybe u’ll get it. muslim women are not demanding the men don’t have access to the gym, they are just are just advocating to ensure their religious rights. in islam it is a right for a woman..and also a man to maintain modest in clothes, communication, spending and really everything. just as it is not your right to be in a men’s only bathroom for modesty reasons, and it is a woman’s right at a major department store to have a door on her dressing room..it is also the right of women-whether they follow Islam or not, to have their privacy while moving in ways that exposes their figures as physically attractive women. wasn’t too long ago that america was filled with women all covered up who had no relation to Islam. people say times are different..but muslims will tell you that modesty-a fundamental aspect of Islam remains the same.
you can not deny that it is difficult for a man or even woman in any given society-whether the US or Saudi for one to lower their gaze. maybe you don’t even think it is necessary too. but in Islam even one’s eyes can lead one to bad ideas & deeds which are of immoral status.
this may seem extreme to you, but i dare you to step out of your guard for a moment and see it for what it is. when you dress up in the morning, you might think you wear what you wear for your own comfort or style..but really your doing it for others approvals and you base what others think to conclude what is cool with you or not. for a woman in hijab-aka,,a muslim woman wearing as Islam calls for, she is also doing it for approval-but not for the approval of the people, not even her father, husband or what other male family member. if she’s doing it for the right reasons (which in the US i;d say most are) then she’s doing it as a form of worship to Allah..so HE is the One she seeks to impress.
Having said that, if Allah is the One she is wearing the hijab for-for the reasons HE has given us of modesty, self-respect, and to be known as those who are Muslim-then what would make her feel comfortable of having strange men even take an unnecessary glance at her? nothing.
so although in Islam its not wrong to be with men if there is a need…to talk with them, work with them, learn from them, or teach them…there really isn’t a need to be sweating in the same gym with them..
if it angers you so much, you should learn more about Islam and the true stance of Muslim women rather than passing judgement..but you’ll never know if you are not sincere about knowing the truth of it all..
It is very funny to be reading this in my circumstances, but I woke up this morning thinking of quitting my gym here in Guadalajara, Mexico–over modesty! There was a sign up yesterday giving the hours for Holy Week, when they will be closed and open, and the background for the sign was a young woman in practically nothing. I asked to speak to the owner, and he said he designed the sign and he saw nothing wrong with it. I argued many of the arguments given above, but he is no longer a Catholic and my appeal