Are Muslim Women Receiving Special Treatment at GMU?

I would add that I don’t particularly care for gender-restricted swimming, but I understand there can be a myriad of reasons why some want it. The goal (I assume) is to swim in the pool, and if certain conditions make it uncomfortable to enjoy the pool, then having gender-restricted hours is a modest and easy accommodation.

As a Pastafarian (all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster), I would like the University to allow my religious expression via a sampling of my afterlife. Thus while they provide Muslim prayer rugs for their religious experiences, I want the University to provide me with a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

There are plenty of women who may benefit from women-only time in pools and gyms, and most of them not for religious reasons. Acknowledging that women’s bodies are put on display and that has been damaging to some women and thus they avoid facilities that would subject them to even the perception of unwanted gaze is not an undue burden enforced solely by one religious sect, but is a product of multiple societal influences.

I’m a bit confused though. There’s discussion of private schools and public schools in nearly the same breath. Which are we actually looking at?

But I’m eagerly awaiting the moment another religious group demands special access to something on campus and gets rejected. What a story that will be…

My mind is racing, trying to dream up what special facilities or privileges the atheists on campus could demand.

If there are 5 students in the Wiccan club that say they can only swim under moonlight, is the school going to open up a night swim during the full moon?

How about the naturalist nudist religion who can only swim in the nude? Do they also get a nude swim session? With a nude lifeguard?

Sounds pretty sensible, so long as:
1. All of those sessions are open to everyone who wants to join them
2. There is enough demand to make it worthwhile

Women-only swim sessions are a pretty common occurrence, and there’s absolutely no indication that this will be restricted to Muslim students.

It is unclear from any of the linked articles whether this swim is open to all women or only muslim women.

If the former, how is it any different from curves, and its women-only policies? If the latter, it would undercut the argument that it was a supportive space for women and become discrimination based solely on religion.

(note-I also believe that curves’ practices are a form of discrimination, but I don’t believe that all discrimination is wrong)

As Hemant has said, the issue comes into focus when others wish to be accommodated in discrimination based on religion or gender and how those requests are treated.

Finding solutions to the use of common resources that respect all members of the community and allow equitable access to the resources are the measures of a mature, successful community.

“Is the university simply doing the kind, decent, yay-for-diversity thing?”

Yes, that is exactly what it is doing. And you are showing your true racist colors in this post.

“I’m not a completely insensitive jerk here.”

Well, actually you are being a bigoted insensitive jerk.

Richard Wade Says:
“My mind is racing, trying to dream up what special facilities or privileges the atheists on campus could demand.”

Since atheism does not exist there is nothing that any atheist could ever demand. If it is true that atheism is a “lack of belief” and that it professes no leaders, no dogmas, no beliefs of any kind then it follows no atheist can ever request anything on behalf of any other atheist. How could any university accommodate atheists since no atheist shares any commonality with any other atheist beside their “lack of belief”, which is not a “thing” but instead a lack of a thing (belief)?

You literally don’t exist. Therefore you do not deserve the slightest public accommodation whatsoever.

What Claudia and NoYourGod said, re:

“The girls should be able to swim here,” [Valdez Williams, the operations manager of the gym] said. “We will not penalize them because of their religious beliefs.”

Nothing the school (and by extension, the State) is doing prevents those girls from using the pool. It is not the State’s responsibility to negate or ameliorate the real-world consequences of anyone’s religious affiliation.

L.Long Says:
“Yes they should stop all that special treatment to various groups.”

Should we stop all that special treatment that we give in our society to the JEWS also?

Are you aware that there are parts of this nation where all the street signs are in Hebrew, all the schools are Jewish schools, and that if you break a law you’ll be brought up before Jewish judges who will judge you according to Jewish law?

What kind of atheist “solution” would you propose for our Jewish problem here in the US?

Grimalkin Says:
“the Muzzies hate women and don’t want to have to look at them.”

Wow, I mean just wow. More atheist racism and bigotry on full display.

Oh, noen, please shut the fuck up.

On-topic:
I don’t see a problem with women-only swim hours, for exactly the feminist reasons mentioned prior to my post. The fact that GMU instituted it because of religious pressure is a little worrying, but I don’t think the idea itself is bad.

The comment about changing around the architecture to suit religious needs is more worrying to me. Remodeling existing buildings or constructing new buildings in order to conform to Islamic segregation or accommodate some other religious need is just silly, a waste of funds, a sign of favoritism, and it opens a really nasty can of worms.

@”Eh”theist said:

Finding solutions to the use of common resources that respect all members of the community and allow equitable access to the resources are the measures of a mature, successful community.

That’s especially true in a college community. This type of balancing is difficult, but takes place all the time. Just as the First Amendment allows some limited exemptions from secular laws to accommodate religious practices, a secular university can make some limited accommodations. Those types of requests can be addressed on a case-by-case basis in a mature, thoughtful way. Allowing one does not automatically send us hurtling down a slippery slope to allowing all, no matter how outrageous.

I love the “we won’t penalize them for their beliefs” line.

Um, you’re not penalizing them, they’re penalizing themselves. If they want to be separatists and not swim because teh evil menz might be in the pool then let them.

As an atheist, I have no problem with a “women’s swim hour” as long as it is simply a woman’s swim hour open to all women. Keep the religious justification out of it. There is no need for it. As others have said, many women would appreciate such an hour. For those that like to mix, there are all the other hours.

Don’t feed the troll.

@ Grimalkin

From what I read in the USA Today article on the prayer room, it sounds like your view is the prevailing MO at GMU. In fact, it says allegations that other students were being forced to observe Muslim traditions resulted in the administration ordering removal of prayer rugs and dividers when the room wasn’t being used for Muslim prayers. Sounds like a fair balance.

On the subject of segregated swim times (and directed to no one in particular), as long as participation is voluntary by women, I don’t see a big issue legally. Yes, I know “voluntary” is a loaded word in this context, because religion involves a lot of “mandatory” rules, many of which are discriminatory or misogynistic. But legally, a school can only look so far as to whether coercion is involved, particularly physical. If women showed up for mixed swim times and Muslim men chased them out of the pool or harassed them, that would be a problem that the law could address. But to deny a religious accommodation just because we don’t like the content of the religion gets into discrimination against a certain viewpoint – which is disallowed under the First Amendment.

That being said, there’s certainly nothing invalid about a perspective that says “segregating genders based on religious precepts squicks me out.” I share the feeling.

While I am torn on gender-segregated pool time in GENERAL, I understand why a lot of religious and non-religious women would want to take the opportunity to have women-only swim time, as has been explained by people in this post.

However, the idea that women should have special swim time because they are not permitted by their religion to be in mixed company is pretty appalling to me. The whole idea of covering up women in religion is inherently sexist. Cover up so I don’t get lustful feelings in my heart. Cover up because your neck or other parts of your body are sensual and since I won’t be held responsible for being an adult human who doesn’t assault others, YOU have to cover up. Cover up because other men shouldn’t see my property.

Grimalkin Says:
“If there are really areas in the US where people who break the law are brought before Jewish courts rather than secular courts, that needs to stop immediately”

Guess again about how the real world works as opposed to your fantasy world.

I needn’t have picked Jews for my example. I could have just as easily pick Mormons. Are you aware that there are parts of this country where Mormonism is quietly practiced, including the practice of polygamy?

Or again, are you aware that there are parts of this country where believers in Indian (India) religious followers have taken over entire towns and run things according to their beliefs at every level?

Your demand that everyone everywhere at all times within the US must believe and behave as you believe is called Totalitarianism. It is no different than the desire of some Christians that they should be the dominant culture.

Every society contains within itself what are called antagonisms. Which are groups of pockets of those who believe and behave in ways counter to the overall culture.

This is normal. In fact, it is the main feature of a multicultural society that it will contain subcultures that do not necessarily see eye to eye.

Atheism as it is currently held CANNOT tolerate dissent from it’s core beliefs. It also CANNOT tolerate rival belief systems. Today’s atheists attack anyone they perceive as a threat to their desire for political hegemony.

The reason those all Jewish communities are doing just fine is because they aren’t being total fucking assholes like the atheists and the Christianist Dominionists are. That’s what it means to be a part of a multicultural society. You sit the fuck down and mind your own business.

“How is it bigotry to say that people who want gender segregation don’t want to have to be around the opposite gender?”

It isn’t. It’s bigotry to single people out on the basis of their race or religion. Opposition to Islamic centers and requests for the accommodation of their religious practices singles them out from those we already accommodate.

When atheists get it through their thick skulls that they are just one belief system among many others and that they do not hold any kind of privileged status with regard to truth, that is when you’ll start being members of a community instead of just antisocial pricks like you are now.

Atheism as it is currently held CANNOT tolerate dissent from it’s core beliefs. It also CANNOT tolerate rival belief systems. Today’s atheists attack anyone they perceive as a threat to their desire for political hegemony.

Utter bollocks. That’s as ridiculous as saying “All Christians/Muslims are fundamentalists” because some of them are.

“I don’t see the women’s-only swim time as being much different from gender segregated bathrooms” Which I can’t use when I am binding (without serious fear of violence or arrest), meaning that I have to schedule my trips, meals, and drinks around safe bathroom spaces (luckily, my university has some gender neutral bathrooms, but I have to go up a floor and halfway across the building rather than a few feet). Gender segregated restrooms can make life pretty damned hard for trans and genderqueer people.

On the issue of accomadations, the legal issue is one of fairness. Does GMU make similar accomadtions for other groups and for non-religious groups? I have yet to see evidence that they wouldn’t (or haven’t). As loath as I am to support any sort of religious practices, GMU can legitimately make accomadations for students so long as they are fair and do not interfere with the rights of other students (it could be argued that the pool closing in fact does this due to gender segregation issues). But more worrisome to me is this policy “Individuals with an infectious disease, nasal or ear discharge, exposed sub-skin tissue, or bandaged body part may not use the pool.” Yep, anyone with HIV is officially banned from pool use (as are people with colds, even though pool chlorine would make this safer than using any other campus facility).

Is it possible for someone to write a piece of code that inserts:

“Noen is a known troll” as a signature for every one of Noen’s posts?

Just so people know that there is no point responding to them…

Thought not. 🙁

Anyway, as regards the gender segregation thing:

If there is an alternate place available for men who want to swim at the same time to do so, then fine, I don’t have a massive problem. If not, then it seems to be rather flagrant sexism, imho. Some places do have multiple swimming pools, and it’s conceivable that that applies here.

The comparison to a non-black (or non-white) hour at the swimming pool is a good one. How about ‘(non)heterosexual hour’? Would anyone else have a problem with that? There are enough homophobic religions around that could demand that.

Here’s the thing, you may not be penalising Muslims for their beliefs by staging a non-male swimming session, but you are penalising non-Muslims for those Muslims’ beliefs. And, personally, I don’t like that.

And before people say that it is ‘only one hour a week’: sexism (or any such prejudice) is wrong whether it is for one hour a week, or every second of every day. We certainly shouldn’t be encouraging it. (There are also the hypothetical situations of people with limited time available to go to this pool.)

Incidentally, I am extremely sympathetic to, say, victims of violent gender crimes having hours set aside for them in such activities, just as I am sympathetic towards those who suffer from mental disorders having time set aside to them, but this is not what we are talking about here.

Indeed, there are a few schemes at gyms around here for people suffering from social phobia and the like that do a fantastic job of gradually integrating people into the societal situations they fear, and I support them wholeheartedly.

This makes me sick.

When will people realize that there is no difference between gender segregation based upon religion and racial segregation based upon religion?

If they wanted to segregate their University provided prayer room by race, on grounds of religion, would that be ok?

And, anyway, how quickly we forget SC decisions.

The Supreme Court just told a Xtian group at a law school that they couldn’t restrict their membership to Xtians or insist that their members dedicate themselves to Christ. Not if they wanted University affiliation and money.

How is this any different?

Answer: it’s not.

And, for those of you out there, women included, who want gender segregated public spaces for your “protection” and to segregate yourselves from the evil oppressors — i.e. the sexual lust of men — be careful what you wish for.

This kind of “protection” quickly turns into oppression.

Just ask Turkish women who are now being threatened with losing their wonderful constitutional rights and protections for their own good by the Islamists in power who just want to protect them.

I expect this plan to be popular for women of all religions. Simple fact is that while men CAN control themselves, plenty of men don’t have any intention of doing so. I’ve been harassed plenty of times when swimming, if I’m at a pool I’m there to swim not to have guys make comments about my body. What annoys me is that it took a religious group pushing the issue for the college to make a safe place for women to swim.

Incidentally, I am extremely sympathetic to, say, victims of violent gender crimes having hours set aside for them in such activities, just as I am sympathetic towards those who suffer from mental disorders having time set aside to them, but this is not what we are talking about here.

You’ve just described a large segment of college women. Sexual harassment and assault is a serious problem on college campuses.

Noadi,

You just perfectly described the ostensible justification for religious misogyny (especially Islamic misogyny), which I’ve heard more times than I care to remember.

Do you really want to be a second class citizen? Is it worth it?

In exchange for a little “protection” (which is a false security, BTW — it only serves to exacerbate the existing problem.)?

@cat, I think we’re long overdue for gender neutral bathrooms, or at the very least putting urinals in a room and then all stalls unisex. I recently worked somewhere with neutral bathrooms; no urinals and every stall had a small sink and mirror, and it worked out fine.

I say keep swimming mixed but allow anyone that wants, to wear the burqa during these sessions. That way no one will know whether they are men or women anyway.

Separate but equal encoded universalizing assumption about blacks. Women-only institutions encode universalizing assumptions about men.

Non-separate changing rooms exist, but even US is a religiously prude country, irregardless of Islam, so we have this notion that men and women seeing each other naked is somehow deeply troubling and that the notion for privacy in that realm is natural or to be expected.

Certainly explains why some US tourists get a heart attack when hitting a Mediterranean beach for the first time.

And by the same token we actually apologize men for misbehaving. We structurally control those that do rather than creating a social context where coexistence is positive.

@Noadi – While it’s uncomfortable for women at the time, is the solution really to segregate ourselves? What I’ve noticed about men is that the ones who are exposed to women a lot, who interact with women and work with women on a regular basis, are far more likely to treat women as people rather than boobs with legs and some uninteresting bits attached.

If men are not expected to act like adults because we modify our behaviour whenever they are jerks, will that really do anything to improve our society?

@sailor – There’s even a special burqa invented for just such occasions. It’s called a Burqini.

@Ms. Crazy Pants – Good for you that you’ve escaped the judgement of other women. Personally, it hasn’t been men who have leered at me or cracked fat jokes, it’s almost always women. It’s the women who tease me in changingrooms, it’s the women who make fun of me when I swim or exercise (“haha, look at the fat girl exherting herself!”). If I wanted to avoid this kind of behaviour, I’d much rather swim during the “men only” time.

“My mind is racing, trying to dream up what special facilities or privileges the atheists on campus could demand.”

How about a really nice (and exclusive) rec. room? You could call it “The Woo Free Zone”? You could have pasta makers, grills for baby back ribs, stuff like that (these last two in jest on my part).

Seems to me that if you accommodate one group you have to accommodate all groups.

I’m another not seeing what the big deal is here about a female-only swim hour. And I don’t care that the MSA is behind it since people can choose to attend for secular reasons.
I can kinda see where some are coming from with the gender equality thing…if the men at GMU are concerned about it, they can get the school to open up men-only hours.
Gender equality is something society will be working on long after it solves its many other problems, and that’s the real issue here.

@Ms. Crazy Pants:

What about when all the Christian groups request special pool hours where homosexuals aren’t allowed in because their religion is against them?

I think most administrators could distinguish that situation. To me, it comes down to a distinction between requesting a reasonable accommodation of beliefs vs. asking the state to enforce your religion on others. The Muslim students didn’t ask for a women-only swim time to discriminate against men as undesireables, or to force others to obey their religion. The hypothetical Christian request, on the other hand, would be solely to force others to conform to their beliefs (or to exclude those who don’t). Drawing these lines isn’t easy, but it isn’t impossible either. If the Muslim students tried to ban non-Muslims (or some group their religion disparages) during the swim time, that would be over the line.

Interesting, as I write responses to this, I’m realizing that I’m steeped in a culture that, legally and otherwise, treats religious thought as deserving of special treatment. If I asserted a personal moral conviction that faculty shouldn’t be allowed to swim during certain hours because it might make students uncomfortable, I’d (rightly) be laughed out of the room. But because it’s religious belief at issue, our legal system (sorry, I am a lawyer, if you hadn’t guessed) grants those moral feelings more weight. Which does argue in favor of an ideal situation where public facilities would not make special rules based on any religion, but private facilities could accommodate or not as they pleased.

One suggestion is a men’s only swim time also (and balanced so that neither group gets a monopoly on prime time [e.g., MW 3pm for women, TTh 3pm for men one week and switch the next week]).

Strictly speaking devout male Muslims shouldn’t be swimming with women (men are also expected to dress modestly in mixed company) so should be using the men only swim time only (at least if clad in most swim suits).

“institutional relationships themselves as a consequence rather than a cause of such universalizing assumptions”

I don’t think we are in disagreement here. A building or infrastructure itself has no meaning. We give it meaning, or we build it for a meaning.

I have been in churches which were used as brewpubs. But my point stands. The reason why they are build and instituted is because those attitudes are promoted rather than questioned.

“Short of utopia, there is no situation in which all social coexistence can a priori be guaranteed to be positive.”

But I’m not talking Utopia, when something like this can observe to work quite well in Europe, i.e. the assumptions are indeed cultural and not universal.

“If you accept that all cultural values are relative”

I do actually not accept that. For example I have yet to find a person who want to be treated against their wishes.

There is a real difference between a society where people are separated from where people are not and this is not neutral, there is a specific meaning related to why separation has to happen, because there is no natural mechanism for this separatedness.

It’s gender discrimination and establishment. Groups always try to get privileges over individuals. If privileges are given to religion then that encourages people to be religious. It’s a small concession, but then are they willing to give small concessions to other groups? What does that mean for individuals? At the very least they should be consulted to minimize the effect on them, it should be operated from the consent of those discriminated against.

I’m interested in the justifications for this. Do you get to decide who gets to look at you in public? If you’re a victim of a crime, do you then get to be segregated from a section of society that committed that crime against you? If you don’t like the possibly of some section of society saying something to you, should you expect to be segregated? The segregation is at the expense of the other party.

This should settle it assuming the pool is open from 8AM till 7PM

8AM – 9AM hetero-women hour
9AM – 10AM lesbian-women hour
10AM – 11AM hetero-men hour
11AM – noon gay-men hour
noon – 1PM hetero (male & female)
1PM – 2PM women only
2PM – 3PM men only
3PM – 4PM everybody
4PM – 5PM only lesbians and gays
5PM – 6PM hetero men and all women
6PM – 7PM hetero women and all men

Apologies if any special interest groups could not be represented due to the limited number of pool hours available.
Any complaints can be submitted in writing.

How silly of me. I forgot to include the following. We will need to extend the pool hours:

7PM – 8PM hetero women and gay men
9PM – 10PM hetero men and lesbian women.

@ Jeff may I not swim as I’m bi? *sulks*

I’ll try not to look!

@Fiona – Swim suits for bi-folk must include a blindfold.

If my university offered a women’s only hour, I would take up that offer. I’m an atheist but I have body issues. I honestly do not use the gym pool because I am too uncomfortable. A women’s only hour would make me feel like I can focus on swimming instead of trying to hide my body.

It isn’t even an issue of sexuality for me. I would feel way more comfortable around lesbians than around men. Maybe I am a little biased because I feel like society teaches men to judge women by their bodies but I feel less of that pressure around women regardless of their sexual preferences. They have the same type of body and likely the same body issues. I have no issue changing completely or taking a shower in the women’s locker room but I would avoid at all costs a co-ed locker room. I know that a swimsuit isn’t the same as full on nudity but it can get pretty darn close sometimes.

I also think that there is a certain level of modesty expected by certain cultures that goes beyond religion. If women do not want to display their body in mixed company, it is difficult to use the gym at all. This is not just about Muslim women or religious women. I know plenty of just plain mid-western women who would prefer a women’s only session.

If men are feeling that this limits their rights to access, you can set up a men’s hour. One hour a week, or two for both sexes, seems like a tiny concession. My university gym has kid’s swim sessions every day for 2 hours. I find that pretty annoying since I am not allowed to swim and I am certain those tots are not university students.

Women-only swimming and workout hours? It may be intended for muslim students but we all know who it’s really going to attract: lesbians. Damn, I wish my campus had more “women-only” facilities. 😉

Cat said…

But more worrisome to me is this policy “Individuals with an infectious disease, nasal or ear discharge, exposed sub-skin tissue, or bandaged body part may not use the pool.” Yep, anyone with HIV is officially banned from pool use (as are people with colds, even though pool chlorine would make this safer than using any other campus facility).

Just a quick note on this. Cryptosporidium is an all too common waterborne illness and outbreaks happen maybe a bit more often than you may think.
Meg said…

My university gym has kid’s swim sessions every day for 2 hours. I find that pretty annoying since I am not allowed to swim and I am certain those tots are not university students.

And kids are the most common cause of crypto in pools, I’ll spare you the gory details and the how and why’s of this, but kids are the vector, (filthy little buggers). Once it’s in the pool it can infect many users and only after the fact are pools closed. Cryptosporidium is pretty chlorine resistant and residual chlorine in a pool will not kill it, and yes even when the chlorine is making your eyes burn, it isn’t gonna kill crypto. People with compromised immune systems are particularly vulnerable to crypto and it would not be uncommon for it to be lethal for anyone and particularly if you have a compromised immune systems. So a bit of advice if you are HIV+ stay the hell outta public pools there is real danger there.

There are very good reasons for rules like these and this is just a single example. Pool water can be nasty stuff and I would personally never swim in a public pool unless I knew something about the equipment being used and the schedule of the users and only then would I make a decision based on that info. As a general rule assuming a sufficient sanitizing system in good working order I would allow no less than 6 hours of the pool running without anyone in it before I used it and I would never use a pool when a load of kids is in it or within 6 hours of them getting out.
Pool chlorine is not a miracle substance and you are not as safe as you think even from something as simple as a cold!
Just saying….
V

Sarah Braasch:

Agreed.

Is there something so shame-causing or inflammatory about appearing in a bathing suit in front of the opposite sex? Really? What century is this? It’s not an attitude to nurture, certainly.

Anyway, these issues have been cropping up in the UK; it wouldn’t be surprising if more requests were made in the US. What a big step backwards for society.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/07/06/pool-modesty-barrier-for-muslims-is-agreed/
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Muslim-father-unhappy-daughter-s-school-swimming-sessions/article-2739192-detail/article.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23733027-swimming-pools-dress-code-for-non-muslims-is-scrapped.do

HItch:

Women-only institutions encode universalizing assumptions about men.

Yes, I really agree.

Sailor wrote:

What I notice in the US when nudity comes up, people don’t mind it if the nude person is young and attractive, but are aghast at a 70 year old topless woman. The great thing about Europe is everyone does it, everyone gets used to it and very fast it is not even an issue.

And that’s why Europe beats us here in North America when it comes to maturity 🙂

How many jokes have all of us heard about someone’s sensibilities being “assaulted” by the sight of an old/unattractive/out-of-shape/pasty person on the beach? Solution: don’t look.

As long as you have gender specific times for the pool and everybody can come times for the pool everybody wins. There’s nothing wrong with making people feel comfortable when they themselves can choose how to exercise their personal beliefs by choosing among all the options.

I don’t really see an issue here. A recognized student organization petitioned the University for use of school facilities for one hour a week. How is this different from a SCUBA club requesting use of the pool one hour a week to hold classes for it’s members?

Great point Katherine. I have changed my stance. This isn’t a religious issue, it is a school club using school facility issue; which there is nothing wrong with.

Muggle

I cannot believe the number of people promoting a segregated hour because some women have body issues.

Just because you don’t have body issues doesn’t mean I don’t. And having only co-ed pool hours won’t suddenly make me feel okay swimming at my university pool. It just means I won’t go swimming.

I don’t feel like men are terrible or the enemy. I just don’t particularly want to be seen by them in skin-tight bathing wear. I can wear long pants and a loose shirt if I want to use the gym. The same is not true of the pool.

This isn’t segregation in the true sense. They aren’t forcing men and women to swim seperately all the time. They are just allowing that some people have different customs and social expectations and those people might want to use the pool when they otherwise would not. You aren’t going to convert women who feel it is immodest to be seen with exposed elbows and knees. You are just denying them the ability to use parts of the gym because your sense of modesty is not the same as theirs.

The comparison to racial segregation is appealing but I don’t think it holds. Men and women do have some things divided up according to sex (locker rooms, bathrooms, occasionally dormitories) and we find these divisions to be appropriate because we do not think men and women should be forced to be naked before one another or in overly intimate situtations together. For some people, clothing as revealing as a bathing suite may cross the line just like some American women would feel that going topless at a beach would cross a line while many other women do not feel that way. Racial segregation is not acceptable (well, not anymore).

And not to defend Mormons or anything but it would be against their doctrine to make such a claim nowadays, too. And miscegenation isn’t something that happens in a pool . . . not usually. It’s a term for a sexual mixing of ethnicities not a social one.

And these women aren’t saying that men can never have been in the pool or that the pool has to be cleaned out before they use it in case any man-cooties got in there. They are not demanding a women’s only pool. This isn’t an attempt to put men down, repress them economically, keep men in men’s only nieghberhoods, deny men access to law school or universities. Just for one hour a week, do something other than use the pool.

I seriously don’t understand how this is a segregation issue. Are fraternities and sororities discriminatory (a few fraternities on my campus are mixed gender, but most are not)? What about the women in engineering group that is only for- surprise- women in engineering. Can anyone explain the difference to me or explain why one gender only organizations are always wrong?

But the question was not if such groups should exist, but if they should be given special privileges to accommodate their exclusionism in a shared space.

I would probably agree with you if it was a public facility instead of a university one. But university facilities are meant to be available for any special interest groups (swim teams, clubs, etc.) Usually there is a limit to how much a group can use the facility exclusively so everyone gets a fair shot. For courts, pools, etc, there is usually a set public swim time when anyone can use them. So if a clean-shaven group wanted to have a clean-shaven pride swim, they could book an hour in the pool if they wanted to. The beard wearers could also book a separate hour if they wanted to as well. If they are a university organization, they should get the same privileges as any other university organization.

I don’t think you understand discrimination.

Well how about you explain it to me then? Do you really have such a low opinion of me that you can’t even tell me why I’m wrong?

The point was that it’s not right to discriminate against the bearded and nobody is obliged to accommodate such discrimination in fact it’s hurtful to do so.

So you think that men find it hurtful that women want a time to swim without men? Even if all the men at the pool were perfectly respectful and completely ignored women, don’t you think it’s possible that women could feel uncomfortable being almost naked around unfamiliar men? What exactly is hurtful? It’s a choice by the woman to swim with or without the opposite sex that may be influenced by culture, religion, or body image. It says absolutely nothing about that woman’s perception of men.

For example I know plenty of guys who participate in Women in Engineering clubs. Women in Engineering (while for women) are not there because of negative attitudes about male engineers (and their gaze and what-not) and are not there to otherize the out-group.

Again, where is the implication that men are somehow bad? Look, I would be personally uncomfortable if I had to swim in a coed pool naked, even if it was the socially acceptable thing to do at that pool. It’s not that the people who would be looking at me are somehow bad, it’s that I would feel uncomfortable with being looked at (even if it was only accidental glances- I am in no way implying that the people at said pool would be leering at me in an inappropriate way). Try as I might, I don’t think I could reason away that feeling, and I would not swim at that pool. I imagine that muslim women-and probably some non-muslim women- feel the same way.

The fact that you proposed that we have beard hour in response perfectly illustrates how you missed the point that it is hurtful to a bearded person to tell them that they are icky or to refuse to share a public space them them!

That is not what I said at all. Being proud of being clean shaven does not make you anti-beard. Being more comfortable around women when bathing, swimming, exercising, etc, does not make you anti-men. That was the point I was trying to make.
Also, the beard hour thing wasn’t a “in response” sort of suggestion. It was a comparison- there could be a clean-shaven pride hour or a beard pride hour- they both have the same right.

No. That is not what is going on here. Here women want to swim without men because of the negative connotation of the male gaze.

Being uncomfortable with men looking at certain parts of your body (“the male gaze”, as you put it) does not make you anti-male. I have certain cultural inhibitions that makes me uncomfortable with having certain parts of my body exposed to the public (especially men). Muslim women are no different. Maybe the inhibition will go away over time, maybe it won’t, but I don’t think I should be called discriminatory because I have it.

I really think you dodge the key point here, which is the very reason why this was instituted.

The point is that some women are uncomfortable with wearing appropriate swim attire around men for religious, cultural, or other reasons. This muslim group booked an hour at the pool, as is the right of any university organization, to let these women swim comfortably. I don’t see anywhere in the article where they talk about protecting women from the evil men or say that the swim time is for muslims exclusively. They don’t say that all women should avoid swimming with men, they just offer a time when those who are uncomfortable with men can swim without inhibition.

ok, the bearded analogy is getting a bit ridiculous. Some people prefer beards, some people prefer clean shaven faces. That has nothing to do with “ickyness”. And muslim women don’t find men icky, they don’t feel comfortable exposing their bodies to a man they don’t know. Getting into *why* they feel this way is a completely separate issue, and not something a pool is meant to address. The university is trying to make people that do feel this way comfortable, and there is nothing wrong with that. What is and isn’t appropriate varies from culture to culture, and I hope that if I travel to europe and visit a beach, I won’t offend any men with my covered breasts.
I really think its bizzarre that you are taking this as a direct attack on men. Is this attitude only reserved for muslim women, or does it apply to any woman who has issues with exposing the “normal” amount of skin at a coed pool?

If you demanded that the beach be cordoned off and line of sight be occluded to accommodate sensitivities yet then there would be an issue.

Doesn’t sound like they are demanding anything. They asked the university if it would be within their rights to do so, and the university thought it was:

“At GW, we try to take care of all of our students,” Williams said. “As long as it’s requested and works within our policies and procedures, we will generally accommodate them.”

See? request. Not demand. Like any other organization. If the university allows for separate changing rooms and bathrooms, I see no reason why it wouldn’t be within their policy to allow for a women only swim time.

I personally don’t care if it’s Islam or other belief systems. I care what it means. In Islam the fact that a woman cannot be seen does say something about men (and women) and it’s not OK.

So women in hijabs are literally invisible to you? You can see women, you just can’t see certain parts of women you don’t know. You can try, but i’m pretty sure you’d have a restraining order against you very quickly.

And it isn’t even Islam. There are plenty of Muslimas who will go to the beach in standard swim-suits. In fact Muslimas win beauty contests including the swin-suit portion…

Which to me makes it even more ridiculous that you are making this an issue centered around muslim beliefs and not personal comfort/modesty.

I agree that the type of clothing that many muslim women are forced/coerced into wearing is a problem. But telling them they can’t have a gender-separated activity when there are so many instances of gender-separated activities/facilities on a campus (sports teams, locker rooms, fraternities, sororities) simply because you disagree with the motivation behind the gender-separation is just not fair. If you want to argue that ALL those instances of gender separation should be abolished, then fine, you have a fair point. It may not be the most practical thing to do, but at least I would understand where you were coming from.

I don’t just “want it to be OK”. I will do my best to explain again why i think the university did the right thing in approving this particular request, and if you think I’m wrong, I hope you will explain why. Having a women only swim time is not setting a precedent. There are women only swim teams, and women only locker rooms/bathrooms. There are women only dorms. Sexual separation is nothing new, and is something this particular university finds acceptable. The university SHOULD NOT deny a request simply because they dislike the motivation behind a request (assuming said request abides by the rules and regulations of the school). A public university should not dictate morality to it’s students.

I don’t want to argue about whether a hijab is “right” or “wrong”. I actually agree with alot of what you said (sorry if that wasn’t clear). But I don’t see how a “sister splash” violates school policy and I don’t think the university had any grounds on which to deny the request since gender separation has already been clearly established within that university. doing so would be similar to thought-policing.

I don’t see how covering the door with a tarp is any different than having seperate locker rooms and bathrooms. Both are meant to keep men and women visually seperate. Again, I really don’t want to argue about whether or not the motivation is right or wrong, partly because I agree with you (I do think it’s just a cultural difference, but that doesn’t make it “right”) and partly because I don’t think it’s relevant. Is the action itself against school policy? There are already instances of gender separated activities and visual separation of men and women at certain times.

also, who is putting up the tarp? Is it the muslim group on campus, or the university? Also, If it is the university, do you also have a problem with the university time and effort put into maintaining the women’s locker rooms/bathrooms? clubs and organizations are allowed to use school resources, including the staff. We get extra security around the gym during our fencing practice because people started stealing our shit when we weren’t right next to it.

what policy/regulation/rule is broken by *the action* of putting up a tarp?

Institutions of higher education routinely dictate certain outlines of morality to their students such as for example anti-discrimination rules, honor codes etc etc.

sure. If you pick on someone because of gender, race, religion, then the university can do something about it. I just don’t see how putting up a tarp, with no other statement than “our girls want privacy”, is equivalent to picking on men when there are clearly instances of visual gender separation on the campus already.

See you have no problem with a brave new world were men and women are completely separated. You justify the entry.

Look we have separate bathrooms from many pragmatic reasons that I have already conceded. We do NOT have them to encode one gender’s attitude about another.

How about we have caffeteria hours where women can be among themselves and all view are blocked for men. After all women want to eat without having to wear concealing cloths too! And now about we make an hour of the day where public streets are forbidden for men, so women can go out and enjoy that liberty as well? How about we have separate sessions in congress so women do not have to content with the discomfort of the looks of their male colleagues?

It’s all fine, we are told: “our girls want privacy”.

Sorry, but I’m not available for such a world. I am available for fiercely criticizing demeaning gender attitudes and working for a world where the genders can happily coexist (without doctrinal codification how “uncomfortable” the other side is).

Look you again dodge the key issue.

“I just don’t see how putting up a tarp, with no other statement than “our girls want privacy””

This is not the cultural context of this.

You seem to advocate that cultural context only exist if someone explicitly states that “Muslimas have to conceal themselves from the looks of men, dress modestly” or quote explicitly the passages from the Quran and the Hadith that demand these attitudes. I’m sorry but the context does apply. Noone would be putting up tarp if it wasn’t for the demeaning gender attitudes, that stem straight from the roots of these prescriptions.

You keep denying it and hence we go nowhere. I have conceded defeat and that’ll have to be it.

“Your making assumptions about this groups beliefs. again, all the muslim group has said is that the tarp is for privacy.”

No I’m not. I’m actually facing a reality that you don’t want to consider. Read what is posted:

“We will not penalize them because of their religious beliefs.”

But yeah keep calling it privacy, when this is now what it is. It accommodating religious beliefs that are inherently gender-alientating and discriminatory.

This is an intricate case because it’s religious discrimination versus gender discrimination. In my mind the latter should always trump else discrimination can always snuck back in under the mantle of religion, and yes the university does have a responsibility in this and does have decisions to make. As I said before, gladly the SCOTUS ruled similarly (though narrowly).

Then stop replying to me. You keep grossly misrepresenting my position so I feel obligated to reply and correct your nonsense.

I haven’t mischaracterized your position at all. You have a disagreement with my position that is all. And you don’t stop responding until I concede to your position. I just won’t because I don’t agree to your actual position.

I say that the university has a responsibility to not encode discriminatory gender attitudes that stem from religions (or other dogmatic ideological sources), you claim it’s not the universities business, but to accommodate the diverse needs of their student body.

But it’s complicated by the fact that you claim that this is just a privacy issue ala bathrooms and hence “continuing a tradition of gender separation”. I just content that you deny the context of this as is plain in what is written about this and that the religious component very much matters.

I have on multiple occasions now carved out the difference between segregation that I find OK and segregation that is discriminatory. We have not moved at all in getting a joint understanding of this difference.

I still think that you fail to acknowledge the implied assumption that are at play here and that isn’t a mischaracterization.

You frame this as a privacy and continuation of standard segration. I just keep reminding that this isn’t all that is going on here. And that this difference is exactly what the difference is between inoccuous segregation and discrimination.

It really doesn’t matter to me if you personally endorse anything. It matters to me that institutions structurally support it. And that is a conscious choice as is clear from the material we are discussion.

Let me just quote you again:

No, I’m saying the cultural backdrop shouldn’t concern the university when making the decision to grant this request.

I just disagree. The university does have to be concerned when they support discrimatory attitudes, especially if the support includes pro-active efforts such as putting up tarps.

I have stated this position many posts ago too.

You can disagree with me, but that’s about it. You won’t ever find me saying it’s just the same as standard gender segregation, because that just belies the reality.

A reality sprinkled over all the statements made here:

“We will not penalize them because of their religious beliefs.”

Now what are the standard discriminatory categories? Religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, country of origin, disabilities etc etc.

You make this into a privacy issue that is neutral. It is not and no matter how you try to spin it that way, or try to absolve the university of their responsibility to actually ensure a non-discriminatory environment it doesn’t change that context matters and that the university has a responsibility for the context.

The university absolutely should accommodate. But not if discrimination is at play, and discrimination is always contextual. I am just not going to repeat the many examples I already gave to illustrate this.

As such a university should accommodate a black student caucus, but it should not accommodate a white suppremacist club.

Both are allowable per 1st amendment, but the 1st amendment does not guarantee structural support or accommodation, just the right to assemble, speak and advocate, even if discriminatory and unwelcome.

The moment positive rights enter, we are having a different discussion.

As said it should be trivial what the difference is between a Black Student Caucus and a White Supremacist club. The context and attitudes of each group! You cannot talk away context and attitudes that drive requests.

So the very fact that gender-discriminatory attitudes drive the request here is absolutely relevant and you can turn a blind eye to it , claim it’s just privacy and we cannot know attitudes and context or say the university has no business in it. I plainly disagree.

And I repeat it’s “separate but equal” the lie that it’s about accommodation of people’s legitimate anxieties and needs, when in reality it’s about stereotypical negative attitude about others.

If a woman needs to absolutely banish all gazes of all men (even men she knows nothing about), that is discriminatory. And you will never find me saying otherwise.

But my guess the reason why we are really still going is because you cannot accept that position. Apparently I have to concede that that isn’t discrimination at all, just a need for privacy and accommodation for a level of comfort. It’s not going to happen, sorry. I think GMU has instituted a discriminatory accommodation (based on discriminatory attitudes of a religion). I think it’s wrong and I think they should not have done it. You are entitled to a different opinion, but you gotta deal with the fact that this is mine. I certainly have more than extensively argued why I hold it. So deal with it.

The difference is in the mindset. Muslims are being politicized to demand accommodations. They’re quite savvy regarding their rights. What ends up happening is everyone practicing Muslim rules by default (rooms with footbaths, reduced swim times for everyone swimming co-ed). Westerners are very ignorant of this (dhimmis). Other cultures don’t behave this way, in general, as they don’t have the same need for domination. 

great….