"Women-only hours are not discriminatory, the reaction is"

Posted to the article, as follows:

---

Where to begin... first, the headline is both incorrect in substance and form.  The author admits women-only hours don't have popular acceptance at McGill in the article itself.  Second, the headline's grammar is wrong.  It reads like Yoda wrote it.

But most importantly, she is wrong.  True equality in a society can't be achieved by restricting access to otherwise public facilities such as campus gyms, which relative to the campus population is a public facility, based on indelible characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, etc.  To support such a policy is, in essence, to support the same principles underlying segregation if not also worse policies manifesting such things in the more extreme, such as apartheid.  Finding ways of separating people rather than bringing them or allowing them to come together is the very essence of how inequalities and prejudices get formed.

The argument from religion also holds no water.  Religious freedom doesn't include the right to ask much less insist that others voluntarily (or not) curtail their own liberties to meet your expectations or personal values.  Start your own single-sex gym if it means that much to you or go to a women's gym off-campus, but wanting men on campus to lose their access to the gym for any amount of time over your sensitive religious feelings or sense of personal "modesty" is a fundamentally immodest act in and of itself.

Another thing to consider is Title IX. Indeed, it guarantees (supposedly) equal access to educational opportunities without discrimination based on sex.  Restricting access to athletic facilities is restricting access to physical *educational* opportunities, formal and not.  Implementing discriminatory access for any amount of time based on sex violates Title IX.  Does Title IX apply only for the benefit of women, I wonder?  Too many people seem to act like it.

The reaction against this idea isn't "violent".  "Violence" is far more serious than what is happening, which is simply a serious disagreement with the idea shared by many, and for good reason.  To the author I say this: if you head into the real world accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "violence" against you, you will soon find yourself very short both on friends and anyone willing to put up with you.  College and the feminist landscape currently seen shaping it is not reality, at least once you are off campus.  The sooner you get serious about learning to deal with the real world where academic feminism doesn't shape people's lives nor affect their reactions, the better off you'll be.  Otherwise, an ice-cold cup of water in the face after a hot shower would feel better than what it'll be like when you discover at your first job interview that well and truly, no one wants to hear your thoughts on eco-feminism or the role of "patriarchy" in the formation of America's folk rock music tradition.

And by the way, take the time to look up the word "reactionary".  You're using it incorrectly.

Unfortunately, McGill is a Canadian University, so Title IX does not apply.

I think that there are only three fair courses of action to take:

1 - Implement Women Only hours, but an equal amount of men only hours as well
2 - Implement Women Only hours, but charge male students less for the athletic fee, since they will have less time to access the facilities they're paying for
3 - Do not implement women only hours

Anything else besides one of these 3 is unjust and discriminatory. But I doubt that a bigot like the one who wrote the article would agree. It's funny how anyone who disagrees with her is automatically "violent". No character assassination attempts there. [/s]

I think policies like this are great.
Men should USE them to reveal the neurosis of feminism.

If you are a man at McGill, the course of action is simple.
1. Allow this policy.
2. On a day of your choosing, just decide that you "sexually identify a woman," and not only use the pool -- use the women's locker rooms.

Thanks for mentioning McGill's in Canada. Should've noticed that. Maybe they have their own Title IX type thing going, dunno. But if they do, I'm sure it goes female->male, never male->female. Seems like anywhere there's an anti-dim. law around sex, it only counts if it'll be of benefit to women and not men as a class.

McGill rejects request for women-only gym hours:
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mcgill-rejects-request-for-women-only-gym-hours-1.2289498

Thankfully, egalitarianism and common sense won.