Harvard bans men from gym during designated hours

[Caladan 19]

Come on, Nessa. Of course the only reason anyone would ever work out is to show off their bodies in public.

[Nessa 23]

There are health benefits, but if they don't want people to see them they should exercise at home. Buy a Tae Bo video or a treadmill.

[Niels Bohr 72]

This is unconstitutional!!! What about other religions? Cultures? etc..Why aren't those differences enforced?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I guess for me it makes a difference that this is on a university campus. This is these kids' home. You want them to put a bowflex in their dorm room?

Most of the students I met in college lived off-campus in their own apartments, so it'd certainly be possible to have exercise equipment. Maybe not a bowflex (since those are extremely expensive), but that was -- more or less -- an example, nothing more. The point being that if you're in a public place, you can't reasonably expect the entire area to shut down and cater to your every whim.

Maybe I don't quite understand this, but how can you expect to go to a public gym (which is what a university-operated gym effectively is for all students) and then expect to have the added benefit of privacy? It doesn't work that way. If you want to work out while making sure no one looks at you "funny" then do it in your home -- get a treadmill, a set of weights, or a bowflex. Something that allows you to exercise in the privacy you so desire, without stepping on the toes of others.

What next? People wanting shopping malls closed to the public for private shopping sprees so they can buy whatever they want without anyone else passing judgment on their purchases?

Believe it or not that has already happened. Also in big department stores, like Macy's and Bloomingdales - they actually have "personal shopper" services for uber-rich folks, where the associate picks a whole bunch of stuff off the racks so that their customer doesn't have to deal with the riff-raff.

That's amazing. I suppose it make sense, though. If multi-millionaires and billionaires want to come in and spend obscene amounts of money (but have some unusual requests), the stores will do as asked. These few shoppers will probably charge more in a few hours than a week's worth of "regular" customers would.

Edited March 5, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Nessa 23]

Come on, Nessa. Of course the only reason anyone would ever work out is to show off their bodies in public.

oh dayum. there goes my effort for a popcorn thread

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

What next? People wanting shopping malls closed to the public for private shopping sprees so they can buy whatever they want without anyone else passing judgment on their purchases?

Celebrities and the uber-rich do this sort of thing all the time at shops in places like LA, London, etc

[Caladan 19]

Maybe I don't quite understand this, but how can you expect to go to a public gym (which is what a university-operated gym effectively is for all students) and then expect to have the added benefit of privacy? It doesn't work that way. If you want to work out while making sure no one looks at you "funny" then do it in your home -- get a treadmill, a set of weights, or a bowflex. Something that allows you to exercise in the privacy you so desire, without stepping on the toes of others.

What next? People wanting shopping malls closed to the public for private shopping sprees so they can buy whatever they want without anyone else passing judgment on their purchases?

Eh. The university is pretty much *home* for students, and petitioning the administration for a couple hours a day at a rarely used gym makes about as much sense as petitioning the university for vegetarian or kosher options (which does happen without anyone getting all upset over it.) I think the relevant standard is the amount of impact on the population at large. So, no moving class times to accommodate prayer, but having six hours a week at an auxiliary gym, or serving vegetarian options, or having a separate Jewish student center that serves meals are all appropriate.

[Jenn! 918]

I guess for me it makes a difference that this is on a university campus. This is these kids' home. You want them to put a bowflex in their dorm room?

Most of the students I met in college lived off-campus in their own apartments, so it'd certainly be possible to have exercise equipment. Maybe not a bowflex (since those are extremely expensive), but that was -- more or less -- an example, nothing more. The point being that if you're in a public place, you can't reasonably expect the entire area to shut down and cater to your every whim.

I just think this is all a knee-jerk reaction to something that is not a big deal. These people pay room and board which supports the gym, why shouldn't they be able to have a couple of hours a week in *one* gym on the entire campus to benefit from the facilities?

[Nessa 23]

Eh. The university is pretty much *home* for students, and petitioning the administration for a couple hours a day at a rarely used gym makes about as much sense as petitioning the university for vegetarian or kosher options (which does happen without anyone getting all upset over it.) I think the relevant standard is the amount of impact on the population at large. So, no moving class times to accommodate prayer, but having six hours a week at an auxiliary gym, or serving vegetarian options, or having a separate Jewish student center that serves meals are all appropriate.

Having vegetarian options would be completely appropriate, but denying other people to have meat at certain hours because it would upset the vegetarian people would be ridiculous.

[DeadPoolX 9]

What next? People wanting shopping malls closed to the public for private shopping sprees so they can buy whatever they want without anyone else passing judgment on their purchases?

Celebrities and the uber-rich do this sort of thing all the time at shops in places like LA, London, etc

So Number 6 has told me. Of course, the main difference between the extremely wealthy doing this and the handful of girls in this article is that the rich are essentially "renting" out those stores for the time the shops are closed to the public.

As I see it, these girls would need a better reason than "religion" to take over an entire gym and use it, while disallowing any males. At best, such a move is unfair and at worst, the school could suffer a lawsuit under the guise of discriminatory practices.

Edited March 5, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Caladan 19]

Eh. The university is pretty much *home* for students, and petitioning the administration for a couple hours a day at a rarely used gym makes about as much sense as petitioning the university for vegetarian or kosher options (which does happen without anyone getting all upset over it.) I think the relevant standard is the amount of impact on the population at large. So, no moving class times to accommodate prayer, but having six hours a week at an auxiliary gym, or serving vegetarian options, or having a separate Jewish student center that serves meals are all appropriate.

Having vegetarian options would be completely appropriate, but denying other people to have meat at certain hours because it would upset the vegetarian people would be ridiculous.

I would agree with you if it were the only gym on Harvard's campus. It isn't, and while I haven't been to Harvard, if I understand the set-up, it's one of the gyms tucked out of the way, not the main facility. It's more like me arguing that it's unfair that I can't get pork at the Jewish center cafeteria than having the whole dining system be kosher.

And as Jenn points out, the students do pay for gym access (in a way that they can't *not* pay; it's bundled into room and board and tuition.) So it would be more like forcing the vegetarians on a meal plan where every meal option had meat, and then getting up in arms because two days a week they were allowed salads.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Eh. The university is pretty much *home* for students, and petitioning the administration for a couple hours a day at a rarely used gym makes about as much sense as petitioning the university for vegetarian or kosher options (which does happen without anyone getting all upset over it.) I think the relevant standard is the amount of impact on the population at large. So, no moving class times to accommodate prayer, but having six hours a week at an auxiliary gym, or serving vegetarian options, or having a separate Jewish student center that serves meals are all appropriate.

Having vegetarian options would be completely appropriate, but denying other people to have meat at certain hours because it would upset the vegetarian people would be ridiculous.

I would agree with you if it were the only gym on Harvard's campus. It isn't, and while I haven't been to Harvard, if I understand the set-up, it's one of the gyms tucked out of the way, not the main facility. It's more like me arguing that it's unfair that I can't get pork at the Jewish center cafeteria than having the whole dining system be kosher.

And as Jenn points out, the students do pay for gym access (in a way that they can't *not* pay; it's bundled into room and board and tuition.) So it would be more like forcing the vegetarians on a meal plan where every meal option had meat, and then getting up in arms because two days a week they were allowed salads.

The one flaw I see with comparing all of this to food is that anyone could potentially go where they want and eat where they want. If a Christian, Hindu, or Muslim wanted to eat some Kosher food, they could. There wouldn't be an aritifical restriction placed upon them, stating, "Since you're not Jewish, you may not eat this food" or "if you're not Jewish, you may only eat this food from such-and-such time." That wouldn't be said and if it was, there would be a huge outcry.

I understand what you're saying about this particular gym. It may not be the most important or easiest to access; however, it's still discriminatory to limit entry based on sex. If this were reversed, feminists on campus and across the country would be furious, claiming sexism of the first degree.

Edited March 5, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Jenn! 918]

If this were reversed, feminists on campus and across the country would be furious, claiming sexism of the first degree.

Maybe so. But IMO they would be wrong as well.

[Alex & Rachel 78]

If this were reversed, feminists on campus and across the country would be furious, claiming sexism of the first degree.

Maybe so. But IMO they would be wrong as well.

[Peikko 1,575]

If this were reversed, feminists on campus and across the country would be furious, claiming sexism of the first degree.

It's this point I agree on, in so far as segregation for whatever reason when in a public sphere should be very carefully evaluated. Could there be women only ereas within the gym? I don't see why not, after all, we have male/female locker rooms, and that is appropriate because in the locker room people get naked. There are cover all costumes for those who desire/require them. Didn't we see one on that thread where the female athlete was banned for having a costume that was the wrong colours? She was able to sprint with it, so I can't imagine it would cause a problem for the average person working out in terms of overheating.

I get the point that some men and some women do feel 'uncomfortable' when viewed by others while they work out but really this is something that is about their self esteem and not about what the 'other's are doing and logically should apply to both sexes not just the opposite one.