Article in French (http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/le-maillot-de-bain-islamique-interdit-a-la-piscine-12-08-2009-604601.php)
Problem: A French woman wants to wear a burkini in a public pool. Public authorities say no. She complains of racism, says she will leave the country if she does not obtain satisfaction.
Public authorities says they refuse the burkinie for the same reason they refuse non standard bathsuit (like shorts) and it has nothing to do with racism.
Now for the racism: She ain't arab. She's "pure" French. Converted to Islam at age 17.
It always seems to be these converts who are the most zealous about burkini, burkas and stuff like that. Always strikes me as weird, but then again, I suppose they must be special people already to switch to such a strict religion so alien to their culture.
P.S. A burkini is a 19th century swimsuit with an integrated hat :P
Converts to ANY religion are always hardcore about it. If you didn't have a giant boner about that particular faith, you wouldn't be converting in the first place.
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 02:54:30 PM
Converts to ANY religion are always hardcore about it. If you didn't have a giant boner about that particular faith, you wouldn't be converting in the first place.
This is true.
Shit, I don't see a reason why people can't swim in suit and tie if they want.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
Shit, I don't see a reason why people can't swim in suit and tie if they want.
Hygiene would be a good one.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2009, 03:28:13 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
Shit, I don't see a reason why people can't swim in suit and tie if they want.
Hygiene would be a good one.
Ok, why do you say swim trunks(or bodies for that matter) are cleaner than normal clothes?
Swimming pool tend not to have a problem with people wearing t-shirts. Wonder why the fuss here.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2009, 04:10:44 PM
Ok, why do you say swim trunks(or bodies for that matter) are cleaner than normal clothes?
Hmm, good question.
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2009, 02:43:25 PM
Now for the racism: She ain't arab. She's "pure" French. Converted to Islam at age 17.
It always seems to be these converts who are the most zealous about burkini, burkas and stuff like that. Always strikes me as weird, but then again, I suppose they must be special people already to switch to such a strict religion so alien to their culture.
There was this American white girl from San Antonio who converted and she always wore that head shit. I swear why a woman would not only convert to Islam but to some fucking fundamentalist part of it sorta baffles me...it is like joining a club where you have to be one of the lowest ranking members for life...and there isn't even any social pressure for these women to do this quite the opposite in fact. At least if you convert to some fucking fundy Christian sect people line up to congratulate you for finding God around here.
Also, like the French press did when they complained of American Francophobia, she misused the term racism. Last I checked being prejudiced against religions or nationalities is not racism it is good old fashioned bigotry and xenophobia.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 04:51:30 PM
There was this American white girl from San Antonio who converted and she always wore that head shit. I swear why a woman would not only convert to Islam but to some fucking fundamentalist part of it sorta baffles me...it is like joining a club where you have to be one of the lowest ranking members for life...
That's Buddhism. Women are just above animals but way below men on the reincarnation scale. It doesn't stop the new age fucks though <_<
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2009, 02:43:25 PM
She complains of racism, says she will leave the country if she does not obtain satisfaction.
Sounds like the problem will correct itself, then. Kinda like that annoying co-worker who threatens to quit.
I saw a couple of these at the local pool last weekend.
I admit to staring for a short time, but like everyone else, I got over it fairly quickly. Not sure why the French have a problem with it, other than the French have a serious problem with the burka, too. Basically, the French have a problem with the Islamic religion, it seems.
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:39:40 PMI admit to staring for a short time, but like everyone else, I got over it fairly quickly. Not sure why the French have a problem with it, other than the French have a serious problem with the burka, too. Basically, the French have a problem with the Islamic religion, it seems.
Let's not do Islam the disservice of equating it with the burka. Burkini's an unfortunate name for this because it's nothing like a burka; it shows the face, the eyes, the hands, the feet and the shape of a woman's body.
Perhaps, but France has made clear their concern over Islamic dress before:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/25/france-burka-veil-controversy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/25/france-burka-veil-controversy)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3478895.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3478895.stm)
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:39:40 PM
Not sure why the French have a problem with it, other than the French have a serious problem with the burka, too. Basically, the French have a problem with the Islamic religion, it seems.
I don't blame them one bit. If I were French, wouldn't want France being overrun by Muslims who refuse to assimilate.
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:51:10 PM
Perhaps, but France has made clear their concern over Islamic dress before:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/25/france-burka-veil-controversy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/25/france-burka-veil-controversy)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3478895.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3478895.stm)
I agree but there's a world of difference between a hijab:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsfromiran.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2F092208_sharzaad_hijab.jpg&hash=4edafcce6eb2224e0da3a569d1eb43290f2f622b)
And a burka:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fclouddragon.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F08%2Fabaya-burka.jpg&hash=8471b9607c4ad26462ce6870cccd1d6660b1501f)
I don't think we should equate the burka (or the niqab, for that matter) with Islam because that suggests that the millions and millions of Muslim women who don't wear it somehow aren't in the Islamic faith. It sort of aligns one's own view of Islam with that of the most backward mullah.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 09:56:36 PM
I don't think we should equate the burka (or the niqab, for that matter) with Islam because that suggests that the millions and millions of Muslim women who don't wear it somehow aren't in the Islamic faith. It sort of aligns one's own view of Islam with that of the most backward mullah.
Fair enough. Nonetheless, France obviously has a problem with the Islamic faith as a whole, and this is one more item of clothing that is under attack by them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 09:56:36 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fclouddragon.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F08%2Fabaya-burka.jpg&hash=8471b9607c4ad26462ce6870cccd1d6660b1501f)
In Generation Kill the Marines call that bread Hajji tortillas.
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:59:35 PM
Fair enough. Nonetheless, France obviously has a problem with the Islamic faith as a whole, and this is one more item of clothing that is under attack by them.
Two hundred years of vicious anti-clericism and you think they only have a problem with the Islamic faith? France generally dislikes religion in general. They work hard to outlaw any new religion entering their country as a cult as well. To take this as some sort of anti-Islamic thing only is to ignore their culture and history and buy into Muslim victimization.
It was once illegal in France for the Catholic church to educate children...think about that for a second. That is one of the central things the Church does.
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:59:35 PM
Fair enough. Nonetheless, France obviously has a problem with the Islamic faith as a whole, and this is one more item of clothing that is under attack by them.
I think the French state has a problem with religion, which it's had for about 100 years. The law that bans the hijab also bans large crosses, stars of David, yarmulkes and turbans. It bans all conspicuous religious symbols from schools (and I think other public buildings, hence the problem with the swimming pool).
Having said that, I think it pretty clearly aimed at Muslims despite being equally applied. I think the reason isn't simple Islamophobia (we need a better word for this) but a combination of two core-tenets of sort of French Republicanism, which made it appeal to both the left and the right. It appealed to French secularism, which is considerably more hardcore than the US version and it appealed to French unity.
The French Republic has a Jacobin streak that dislikes the idea of Federalism or, more specifically, ghettoisation. For example last year the French Senate rejected a law acknowledging the existence of languages other than French in France (specifically Langue d'Oc and Breton) because it threatened the unity of the Republic. So the argument was made that conspicuous religious symbols indicated a separation from the society of the French Republic, offended its secularism and that it was about the hijab specifically tapped into French concern with Islam.
So I think France has a problem with aspects of Islam but that a lot of those aspects that concerns it are ones that tap into pre-existing and long-standing French preoccupations. I wonder if that's the same with most societies though. I mean the Dutch don't like Islam because Muslims don't like gays and liberal sexual attitudes, arguably the English have problems because, unlike other immigrant communities, they don't just add to our national palate, have parties and in other ways behave discreetly....Not sure though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 10:13:05 PMThey work hard to outlaw any new religion entering their country as a cult as well.
Scientology should be a criminal cult.
QuoteIt was once illegal in France for the Catholic church to educate children...think about that for a second. That is one of the central things the Church does.
France has rather abandoned Republican values :(
Weep for France Jules Ferry! :(
QuoteFor example last year the French Senate rejected a law acknowledging the existence of languages other than French in France (specifically Langue d'Oc and Breton) because it threatened the unity of the Republic.
France is absolutely right about that. Those languages should remain interesting cultural antiques not living languages to be officially recognized. Regional nationalism does nobody any good and should be discouraged or at the very least given no official encouragement.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 10:22:49 PM
QuoteFor example last year the French Senate rejected a law acknowledging the existence of languages other than French in France (specifically Langue d'Oc and Breton) because it threatened the unity of the Republic.
France is absolutely right about that. Those languages should remain interesting cultural antiques not living languages to be officially recognized. Regional nationalism does nobody any good and should be discouraged or at the very least given no official encouragement.
I always knew that underneath all that studied American moderation you were a Jacobin :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 05:03:32 PM
That's Buddhism. Women are just above animals but way below men on the reincarnation scale. It doesn't stop the new age fucks though <_<
Well similarly if the new age fucks were embracing some sort of nutty Buddhism instead of the hippy version they tend to take on that would be similarly as bizarre. If these Muslim ladies were converting to some Alevi sect of Islam or somethigng more capatible with sanity and the western world that would be different.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 10:33:12 PM
Well similarly if the new age fucks were embracing some sort of nutty Buddhism instead of the hippy version they tend to take on that would be similarly as bizarre. If these Muslim ladies were converting to some Alevi sect of Islam or somethigng more capatible with sanity and the western world that would be different.
That's not a nutty Buddhist view, it's standard in Buddhism at the very least across South-East Asia. I think my view is that divorced from the cultural surroundings and context of a faith people go for what they want and they have a convert's zealousy for it. For the new age fucks religion fills the space that pseudo-Eastern interior design can't. For ones to other faiths it's often different, in Islam I think a lot of people are looking for rules and a sort of austerity.
Although I never thought the Burkini (terrible name) was that bad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxicoriasexicoracoes.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2Fburkini230607mos-468x810.jpg&hash=4eee8d6f2809eee74c99041c7fd02fa1a9558e16)
Though I believe the problem Muslim women have with swimming is solved in this country by arranging women only times in the pool.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 10:54:09 PM
Though I believe the problem Muslim women have with swimming is solved in this country by arranging women only times in the pool.
Wow that is horrible. A staple of Western civilization for centuries has been the fact the genders hang out together, I know that is completely anathema to the Middle Eastern cultures and all but...
well that is why I really dislike religions that put ancient cultural values and claim they are eternal moral standards. That is bullshit and total coocoo nonsense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 09:56:36 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsfromiran.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2F092208_sharzaad_hijab.jpg&hash=4edafcce6eb2224e0da3a569d1eb43290f2f622b)
Millions of photos of attractive women with hijabs on the internet (just google image 'Iranian women'), why did you have to choose the one with a crucified nose and awful cheek bones? :x
I don't see what is wrong with the "burkini". I can still see that girl's ass. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 11:02:16 PM
Wow that is horrible. A staple of Western civilization for centuries has been the fact the genders hang out together, I know that is completely anathema to the Middle Eastern cultures and all but...
Hanging around in state of semi-nudity is only a relatively recent staple. I mean what that woman's wearing - which would allow a woman to swim with men - is no different from, as Viper says, what European women and men wore in the Edwardian period.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 10:22:49 PM
QuoteFor example last year the French Senate rejected a law acknowledging the existence of languages other than French in France (specifically Langue d'Oc and Breton) because it threatened the unity of the Republic.
France is absolutely right about that. Those languages should remain interesting cultural antiques not living languages to be officially recognized. Regional nationalism does nobody any good and should be discouraged or at the very least given no official encouragement.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:39:40 PM
I saw a couple of these at the local pool last weekend.
I admit to staring for a short time, but like everyone else, I got over it fairly quickly. Not sure why the French have a problem with it, other than the French have a serious problem with the burka, too. Basically, the French have a problem with the Islamic religion, it seems.
no, France has a problem with anything and everything that's a threat to the laïcité of the country. France had just as much problems and was just as 'intolerant' towards christianity at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 10:54:09 PM
Though I believe the problem Muslim women have with swimming is solved in this country by arranging women only times in the pool.
that's segregation and flies directly in the face of the basic tenet of equality between men and women.
Might as well segregate them on the buses and in the workspace too then.
Those muslims knew what they were getting into when they migrated here, just like people from here know what they're getting into when they migrate there.
Not so Keen on the segregation thing either.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 14, 2009, 12:19:10 AM
that's segregation and flies directly in the face of the basic tenet of equality between men and women.
Might as well segregate them on the buses and in the workspace too then.
Those muslims knew what they were getting into when they migrated here, just like people from here know what they're getting into when they migrate there.
I think this an intolerance disguising itself in a rigid adherence to the rules. It's like a traffic warden's bias.
Personally I don't see why allowing men and women separate time to swim in the pool is discrimination when time set aside in the same pool for just families, just mothers, just elderly people isn't. While most of the time a pool's open to all.
In fact, from what I've read, we should celebrate the ability of single-sex swimming to bring different cultures together. In Hackney it was apparently a joint campaign of the Hasidic Jewish community and the Muslim community that campaigned for it. There were more Muslim women so made up the numbers on petitions and so on, but apparently because many of them didn't have English as a native tongue the Hasidic Jews wrote the petitions and the letters.
Since then Muslim women, Hasidic Jewish women and a number of just elderly women who feel uncomfortable in a swimming cossie with men around mingle, freely butterflying around.
I think single-sex time for swimming is about the state and a public body opening up. It's if anything more in the spirit of equality of opportunity ('Let my people front-crawl') than saying to swim you must be willing to mix with people of all ages, all backgrounds, all genders (and sexual orientations). In France you even have to be willing to do it in rather revealing clothing. I don't think there's anything wrong about allowing 'segregation' if it encourages engagement and equality. I think it's more in the spirit of equality than a pedantic, tut-ting little Hitler in the council office moaning about it.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 12:27:58 AM
Not so Keen on the segregation thing either.
It's an hour or two a week :mellow:
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2009, 02:43:25 PMShe complains of racism, says she will leave the country if she does not obtain satisfaction.
Ok. Where's the catch? :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:59:35 PM
Fair enough. Nonetheless, France obviously has a problem with the Islamic faith as a whole, and this is one more item of clothing that is under attack by them.
Two hundred years of vicious anti-clericism and you think they only have a problem with the Islamic faith? France generally dislikes religion in general. They work hard to outlaw any new religion entering their country as a cult as well. To take this as some sort of anti-Islamic thing only is to ignore their culture and history and buy into Muslim victimization.
It was once illegal in France for the Catholic church to educate children...think about that for a second. That is one of the central things the Church does.
Fair enough, but we have to remember that France also has some downsides.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 10:54:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 10:33:12 PM
Well similarly if the new age fucks were embracing some sort of nutty Buddhism instead of the hippy version they tend to take on that would be similarly as bizarre. If these Muslim ladies were converting to some Alevi sect of Islam or somethigng more capatible with sanity and the western world that would be different.
That's not a nutty Buddhist view, it's standard in Buddhism at the very least across South-East Asia. I think my view is that divorced from the cultural surroundings and context of a faith people go for what they want and they have a convert's zealousy for it. For the new age fucks religion fills the space that pseudo-Eastern interior design can't. For ones to other faiths it's often different, in Islam I think a lot of people are looking for rules and a sort of austerity.
Although I never thought the Burkini (terrible name) was that bad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxicoriasexicoracoes.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2Fburkini230607mos-468x810.jpg&hash=4eee8d6f2809eee74c99041c7fd02fa1a9558e16)
Though I believe the problem Muslim women have with swimming is solved in this country by arranging women only times in the pool.
Well, I'd rather have "new age fucks" who take Buddhism out of its cultural context, than fundamentalists who take Christianity, Judaism or Islam in its full "cultural context" and therefore believe it is right to stone gays to death.
Most problems with world religions is exactly that a lot of their followers can't separate the universal message from the context in which it was uttered 2000+ years ago.
Sheilbh, I think the argument against both the burkha and the "women's only pool times" for cultural reasons is that the state begins to act like an enabler for gender oppression.
You may compare it to "swimming hours for the elderly" or for families, but one can just as well compare it to "swimming hours for the white folk" and "swimming hours for the coloured people" and this stops being such a harmless thing immediately. And I believe the cultural context of this kind of gender segregation is more like the latter than like the former.
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2009, 02:02:40 AM
Sheilbh, I think the argument against both the burkha and the "women's only pool times" for cultural reasons is that the state begins to act like an enabler for gender oppression.
You may compare it to "swimming hours for the elderly" or for families, but one can just as well compare it to "swimming hours for the white folk" and "swimming hours for the coloured people" and this stops being such a harmless thing immediately. And I believe the cultural context of this kind of gender segregation is more like the latter than like the former.
How is separate swimming 'gender oppression' unless the women have to swim in a pool of piss? If the service is exactly the same and it's a matter of choice then I can't see how it's an issue. As I say a number of the people who take advantage of this are elderly women who, from their cultural context, aren't happy with swimming semi-nude with lots of men around. A big issue in recent years has been that the NHS started to prefer mixed sex wards and elderly people (men and women), especially took a dislike to it.
Look, I think the thing for me is I've known a number of Muslim women who aren't oppressed by their family, who are studying at university and genuinely choose to wear the hijab and dress in a way that they consider respectable. They wouldn't go swimming in front of a load of men in a bikini, which I think is fine.
So the state allowing for either swimming hours for women or the burkini could be enabling the women whose family force them into a niqab every day, but it also enables other Muslim women who choose to wear a veil and what have you to swim. I think the latter group matters more and I think that for the former this is really small beer and there's probably a lot more the state should be worried about.
When you something like a different curriculum in a Muslim school for girls than for boys then I think that's a case of the extreme or hardcore dominating and the state should stop that. Or even if there was a demand for pools to be segregated into male and female. That is segregation and that is having a negative effect on people's rights.
To me banning women only swimming hours or the burkini is like banning halal (and kosher) meat, because it offends our sense of animal rights. Allowing the burkini or women only hours is like allowing places that wish to sell halal (or kosher) meat to do so. I don't think a small point of principle and a tiny, miniscule victory against 'gender oppression' is worth the unfortunate side-effect of moderate Muslim women not being uncomfortable going to swim. It just seems a bit intolerant for very little purpose.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 10:22:49 PM
QuoteFor example last year the French Senate rejected a law acknowledging the existence of languages other than French in France (specifically Langue d'Oc and Breton) because it threatened the unity of the Republic.
France is absolutely right about that. Those languages should remain interesting cultural antiques not living languages to be officially recognized. Regional nationalism does nobody any good and should be discouraged or at the very least given no official encouragement.
You should come to Spain, you'd have a blast. :lol:
Swim time for whites sounds good to me. I hate being in the water with brown people.
France is Awesome!
Quote from: Jaron on August 14, 2009, 06:24:40 AM
Swim time for whites sounds good to me. I hate being in the water with brown people.
Sorry, no Jews allowed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
Shit, I don't see a reason why people can't swim in suit and tie if they want.
I understand it's because pool water is chlorinated, and the bleaching action on normal street clothes fucks up the water. I don't know this for a verified fact, but it's what my maintenance guy has told me.
Now why a "burkini" (nice neologism, that) designed for contact with chlorinated water like a regular bathing suit would make a difference to anyone is beyond me.
It is remotely possible that it absorbs so much water as it would become a safety and liability risk, I guess. With your suit and tie example, this would be an even more pressing problem than mucking up pool pH or whatever. A suit would drag you to Davy Jones' locker toot sweet.
Also, for what it's worth, I could see benefit in gender segregated swimming, particularly for women who are either embarassed by their looks or annoyed by people like me ogling them.
Not everything has to be Goddamned political.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 14, 2009, 06:34:55 AM
Also, for what it's worth, I could see benefit in gender segregated swimming, particularly for women who are either embarassed by their looks or annoyed by people like me ogling them.
Not everything has to be Goddamned political.
This is what I was kind of thinking, too. So long as it's a choice and not the only option, I really don't see a problem with women-only times and men-only times.
A friend of mine once got into a discussion with a group of us about how the bikini is actually more oppressive to women than the burka. I never really heard her full argument on it, but it had something to do with making women nothing more than a sex object is more demeaning and oppressive (as a bikini does) than making them nothing but lumps of fabric.
I've heard the argument before and disagree with it, as it's completely by choice that women wear bikinis whereas burkas are usually enforced by either religion, family, or law. Some could say that for Islamic women, it's a cultural pressure that enforces the burka, and for the women in bikinis it's the same thing. Given that I haven't worn a bikini since I was 13 and never felt pressured to do so, I think that last bit is total bunk.
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2009, 11:37:36 PM
:rolleyes:
Yeah? What good could possibly come from encouraging the emergence of dead/dying regional languages?
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2009, 07:16:09 AM
A friend of mine once got into a discussion with a group of us about how the bikini is actually more oppressive to women than the burka. I never really heard her full argument on it, but it had something to do with making women nothing more than a sex object is more demeaning and oppressive (as a bikini does) than making them nothing but lumps of fabric.
What a bunch of unbelievable bullshit. Yes the woman body is evil and men looking at it is doubly evil. Women should be locked away and covered for their own freedom and protection. Everytime I lust in my heart I shall ritually scourge myself.
I hear arguements like that from religious fanatics all the damn time. Please let me know how people being sexually attracted to me makes me a sex object? I never understood that ridiculous arguement. Being a sex object does not mean you go to swim and some people think you are hot. I mean does every concept have to watered down to ridiculous levels?
QuoteI've heard the argument before and disagree with it, as it's completely by choice that women wear bikinis whereas burkas are usually enforced by either religion, family, or law. Some could say that for Islamic women, it's a cultural pressure that enforces the burka, and for the women in bikinis it's the same thing. Given that I haven't worn a bikini since I was 13 and never felt pressured to do so, I think that last bit is total bunk.
Thank you.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 11:02:16 PM
Wow that is horrible. A staple of Western civilization for centuries has been the fact the genders hang out together, I know that is completely anathema to the Middle Eastern cultures and all but...
well that is why I really dislike religions that put ancient cultural values and claim they are eternal moral standards. That is bullshit and total coocoo nonsense.
That's multiculturalism in action. Where weastern values are watered down to cater to 3rd World savages. <_<
G.
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2009, 06:13:34 AM
You should come to Spain, you'd have a blast. :lol:
Yeah and I notice how open minded and peaceful encouraging all that regional bullshit makes the people of Spain.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 14, 2009, 06:34:55 AM
Also, for what it's worth, I could see benefit in gender segregated swimming, particularly for women who are either embarassed by their looks or annoyed by people like me ogling them.
Sure that is what private pools are for. Anyway maybe these women should grow up, be adults, and get over it? I don't really like the idea my ability to swim at a public pool has to be restricted to accomadate insecure people or some sort of foreign cultural value.
I'm not sure I understand why a woman wouldn't want her tits to be admired. :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:36:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2009, 06:13:34 AM
You should come to Spain, you'd have a blast. :lol:
Yeah and I notice how open minded and peaceful encouraging all that regional bullshit makes the people of Spain.
Regional bullshit is quite important over here, thankyouverymuch. Repressing/Denying it would be futile and counter intuitive.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:41:59 AM
Sure that is what private pools are for. Anyway maybe these women should grow up, be adults, and get over it? I don't really like the idea my ability to swim at a public pool has to be restricted to accomadate insecure people or some sort of foreign cultural value.
Many pools will be closed to the public at times when they're offering classes, this isn't much different. Ultimately, it's a business decision.
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:36:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2009, 06:13:34 AM
You should come to Spain, you'd have a blast. :lol:
Yeah and I notice how open minded and peaceful encouraging all that regional bullshit makes the people of Spain.
Regional bullshit is quite important over here, thankyouverymuch. Repressing/Denying it would be futile and counter intuitive.
Besides some crazy Basque trying to blow stuff up the rest of you guys seem to get along well enough :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Regional bullshit is quite important over here, thankyouverymuch. Repressing/Denying it would be futile and counter intuitive.
I know but I cannot say I think it is such a great thing that it should be introduced other places.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 14, 2009, 07:48:04 AM
Many pools will be closed to the public at times when they're offering classes, this isn't much different. Ultimately, it's a business decision.
And I am free to take those classes. Besides we don't pay for public pools since that is what we pay taxes for.
Also most of the classes happen when the pools are already closed to the public or take up only part of the pool.
Quote from: HVC on August 14, 2009, 07:48:55 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:36:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2009, 06:13:34 AM
You should come to Spain, you'd have a blast. :lol:
Yeah and I notice how open minded and peaceful encouraging all that regional bullshit makes the people of Spain.
Regional bullshit is quite important over here, thankyouverymuch. Repressing/Denying it would be futile and counter intuitive.
Besides some crazy Basque trying to blow stuff up the rest of you guys seem to get along well enough :lol:
At least it provides for a hefty amount of arguments on internet boards. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
I'm not sure I understand why a woman wouldn't want her tits to be admired. :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hennessy.id.au%2Fquentingeorge%2Farchives%2Ffacepalm4.jpg&hash=427e479f31712f0e293a1e6db4e3bcdf2216d970)
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:56:31 AM
Besides we don't pay for public pools since that is what we pay taxes for.
Does the government actually pay for pools? I don't know of any free pools around here. <_<
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 14, 2009, 08:10:03 AM
Does the government actually pay for pools? I don't know of any free pools around here. <_<
Yep. We just walk on in.
When I was a kid, all the community pools in my hometown/surrounding towns were "swim clubs" you had to pay to belong to, whereas in Philadelphia the community pools were in fact free.
We found that this was an effective way to keep the negroes out of our swimming pools. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 04:06:03 AM
How is separate swimming 'gender oppression' unless the women have to swim in a pool of piss? If the service is exactly the same and it's a matter of choice then I can't see how it's an issue. As I say a number of the people who take advantage of this are elderly women who, from their cultural context, aren't happy with swimming semi-nude with lots of men around. A big issue in recent years has been that the NHS started to prefer mixed sex wards and elderly people (men and women), especially took a dislike to it.
I think the point is that muslim women would be coerced/pressured to participate in the female-only swimming hours by their husbands/fathers/brothers, and thus there would be no freedom of choice that you speak of.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 14, 2009, 06:34:55 AM
Also, for what it's worth, I could see benefit in gender segregated swimming, particularly for women who are either embarassed by their looks or annoyed by people like me ogling them.
Not everything has to be Goddamned political.
On second thought, I'd go to men-only swimming hours, too.
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2009, 09:54:22 AM
On second thought, I'd go to men-only swimming hours, too.
gay.
I wouldn't. I want to see me some hot side boobage action.
Quote from: Tyr on August 13, 2009, 04:17:40 PM
Swimming pool tend not to have a problem with people wearing t-shirts. Wonder why the fuss here.
No way I'm swimming with a t-shirt here at the public pool. That's strictly forbidden. In fact, in most outside pools it is.
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2009, 01:48:24 AM
Fair enough, but we have to remember that France also has some downsides.
They are socialists and home to a bunch of radical leftists near commies, but for the rest they have made tremendous progress to reach the 21st century.
They now not only clean the streets&sidewalks, but more important, they now forbid smoking in public place. Any country doing that can not be 100% bad.
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 08:44:14 AM
When I was a kid, all the community pools in my hometown/surrounding towns were "swim clubs" you had to pay to belong to, whereas in Philadelphia the community pools were in fact free.
Our gated community had its own pool. I grew up thinking all pools were like that, until a classmate had a birthday party at a public pool :x
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
No way I'm swimming with a t-shirt here at the public pool. That's strictly forbidden. In fact, in most outside pools it is.
Then how do fat kids hide their shame? :o
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:35:20 AM
What a bunch of unbelievable bullshit. Yes the woman body is evil and men looking at it is doubly evil. Women should be locked away and covered for their own freedom and protection. Everytime I lust in my heart I shall ritually scourge myself.
I hear arguements like that from religious fanatics all the damn time. Please let me know how people being sexually attracted to me makes me a sex object? I never understood that ridiculous arguement. Being a sex object does not mean you go to swim and some people think you are hot. I mean does every concept have to watered down to ridiculous levels?
It can be a problem though if people refuse to take you seriously as they simply see you as sexual bait.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 12:07:51 PM
It can be a problem though if people refuse to take you seriously as they simply see you as sexual bait.
Do you need to be taken seriously at the pool? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2009, 09:54:22 AM
On second thought, I'd go to men-only swimming hours, too.
This basically happens already at clean gay sex clubs/bathhouses.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 14, 2009, 12:10:30 PM
Do you need to be taken seriously at the pool? :huh:
Maybe.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 12:07:51 PM
It can be a problem though if people refuse to take you seriously as they simply see you as sexual bait.
And here we have when sexualization is bad. But seriously though what is to stop people treating others like shit for any number of reasons? Running away and hiding because they are jerks in the world is rather ridiculous.
In any case nobody forces anybody to wear a tiny bathing suite.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 12:28:01 PM
Running away and hiding because they are jerks in the world is rather ridiculous.
Not wearing a bikini = running away and hiding?
Yeah. Segregation is great.
I'm all for segregation.
My favourite kind would probably be "Muslims only" full-size baking ovens.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 14, 2009, 06:34:55 AM
Also, for what it's worth, I could see benefit in gender segregated swimming, particularly for women who are either embarassed by their looks or annoyed by people like me ogling them.
Not everything has to be Goddamned political.
Could you see the benefit of straights only swimming hours?
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 12:34:14 PM
Not wearing a bikini = running away and hiding?
No I meant the whole sexuality is terrible and oppressive to women thing, ergo should be discouraged everywhere. Whether or not you want to wear a bikini is entirely a matter of personal taste.
Quote from: Grallon on August 14, 2009, 07:36:08 AM
That's multiculturalism in action. Where weastern values are watered down to cater to 3rd World savages. <_<
If, from Plato to NATO, Western values boil down to mixed gender swimming in revealing costumes then we've really not much to be proud of.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 03:29:29 PM
If, from Plato to NATO, Western values boil down to mixed gender swimming in revealing costumes then we've really not much to be proud of.
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 03:29:29 PM
If, from Plato to NATO, Western values boil down to mixed gender swimming in revealing costumes then we've really not much to be proud of.
Not sure I can agree with that. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2009, 10:54:09 PM
Though I believe the problem Muslim women have with swimming is solved in this country by arranging women only times in the pool.
:rolleyes:
Lille is a peculiar case. That's the case you are referring to I guess.
Merci la gauche politiquement correcte!Ségolène, as the holier than thou bourgeoise she is, supported it of course but then for her japanese cartoons are more of a threat for French youth than the islamic scarf... :D
OTOH, a communist MP, supported by the conservatives, suggested the burqa ban.
Converts are indeed a pain in the neck but in my experience, it's mostly black men who do so out of rebellion against the white man who is the only one to blame for the slave trade, unlike Arabs or even Africa itself. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2009, 09:52:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 04:06:03 AM
How is separate swimming 'gender oppression' unless the women have to swim in a pool of piss? If the service is exactly the same and it's a matter of choice then I can't see how it's an issue. As I say a number of the people who take advantage of this are elderly women who, from their cultural context, aren't happy with swimming semi-nude with lots of men around. A big issue in recent years has been that the NHS started to prefer mixed sex wards and elderly people (men and women), especially took a dislike to it.
I think the point is that muslim women would be coerced/pressured to participate in the female-only swimming hours by their husbands/fathers/brothers, and thus there would be no freedom of choice that you speak of.
bingo.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 03:29:29 PM
If, from Plato to NATO, Western values boil down to mixed gender swimming in revealing costumes then we've really not much to be proud of.
Not sure I can agree with that. :D
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 03:29:29 PM
If, from Plato to NATO, Western values boil down to mixed gender swimming in revealing costumes then we've really not much to be proud of.
The revealing costumes not so much but not segregating things by gender is something we have been pretty good about. Heck even Peter the Great copied that as one of his reforms by bringing the Russian women out of the Terems.
I actually take alot of pride in that. Well pride may be the wrong word since I don't really have anything to do with it but it is something admirable I think.
If you think it's okay to have gender segregated change rooms, gender segregated showers, gender segregated saunas, gender segregated toilets, gender segregated fitness classes and/ or gender segregated areas of the gym, it's pretty hard to make a convincing and consistent case that having gender segregated swimming is oppressive.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 05:40:37 PM
If you think it's okay to have gender segregated change rooms, gender segregated showers, gender segregated saunas, gender segregated toilets, gender segregated fitness classes and/ or gender segregated areas of the gym, it's pretty hard to make a convincing and consistent case that having gender segregated swimming is oppressive.
Most of those involve nudity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2009, 05:45:53 PMMost of those involve nudity.
That varies by local custom.
Showers, yes - though many people take great care to cover up with towels so if you don't want people to see you you can prevent them from; saunas should be naked, but lots of people wear swimwear for them; toilets not really except for urinals, fitness classes and parts of the gym - no;
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 05:40:37 PM
If you think it's okay to have gender segregated change rooms, gender segregated showers, gender segregated saunas, gender segregated toilets, gender segregated fitness classes and/ or gender segregated areas of the gym, it's pretty hard to make a convincing and consistent case that having gender segregated swimming is oppressive.
Wow an all or nothing arguement. Nice one how original!
Quotefitness classes and parts of the gym - no
Yeah I would never join a gym with gender segregation either just FYI.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 06:12:27 PM
Wow an all or nothing arguement. Nice one how original!
Swimming pools aren't so very different from the activities he listed. :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 06:13:05 PM
Quotefitness classes and parts of the gym - no
Yeah I would never join a gym with gender segregation either just FYI.
Yeah, that's gross.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 05:56:27 PM
Showers, yes - though many people take great care to cover up with towels so if you don't want people to see you you can prevent them from; saunas should be naked, but lots of people wear swimwear for them; toilets not really except for urinals, fitness classes and parts of the gym - no;
Changing rooms--pretty much by definition.
My highschool had a communal shower where everyone stood in a circle and checked out each other's wangs.
FYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2009, 06:46:17 PM
FYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
This kind of reminds me of how in college, we weren't allowed to room with people of opposite genders, yet a pair of gay boyfriends could room together. Oh how a conservative approach to policy can allow for so many flaws.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 06:13:05 PM
Quotefitness classes and parts of the gym - no
Yeah I would never join a gym with gender segregation either just FYI.
I know a few girls who go to female only stuff at the gym. I can't remember why, I think it was because they were worried about guys perving.
Quote
The revealing costumes not so much but not segregating things by gender is something we have been pretty good about. Heck even Peter the Great copied that as one of his reforms by bringing the Russian women out of the Terems.
I actually take alot of pride in that. Well pride may be the wrong word since I don't really have anything to do with it but it is something admirable I think.
I generally agree, within reason (I've no problem with single sex schools in principle, though I object in practice) but I think that we should focus on the stuff that matters not swimming or gyms because lots of women, for non-religious reasons as much as religious reasons are more comfortable not having lots of men around when they're wearing lycra.
QuoteWow an all or nothing arguement. Nice one how original!
All or nothing is hardly how I'd describe allowing gender segregation when degrees of undress or jiggliness are involved.
QuoteYeah I would never join a gym with gender segregation either just FYI.
We're not talking about pools that are just for women and just for men, we're talking about an hour or two a week just for women and a similar time for men. Similarly not segregated gyms but if women want women only classes (or guys for that matter) then let them have it. I'm fairly sure my old gym had a gay yoga group that included no women.
Somehow I imagine Marty wouldn't scream SEGREGATION! and SELF-GHETTOISATION! about a bunch of nubile stretching queers as opposed to bashful women.
QuoteFYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
This may be my homosexuality showing through but I can't see how swimming groups defined by sexuality could ever be for modesty's sake. I mean I would rule out that on hygiene grounds :p
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 06:53:56 PM
I know a few girls who go to female only stuff at the gym. I can't remember why, I think it was because they were worried about guys perving.
Yeah and that is too bad. I see those gyms and I don't like them but what can you do?
Quote
I generally agree, within reason (I've no problem with single sex schools in principle, though I object in practice) but I think that we should focus on the stuff that matters not swimming or gyms because lots of women, for non-religious reasons as much as religious reasons are more comfortable not having lots of men around when they're wearing lycra.
But I am against taking actions, setting up a bunch of segregated pool times.
And generally you can easily work out and swim without wearing sexy outfits, those are optional for those who want to. Anyway this is about my personal preferences.
QuoteAll or nothing is hardly how I'd describe allowing gender segregation when degrees of undress or jiggliness are involved.
Allowing? I am simply against switching things around to help religious fundamentalists keep their women hidden away. I am not really aware of that law that prevents it.
All or nothing is exactly the sort of arguement that says 'well if you are against all female pools you must also be against all female bathrooms'. That is bullshit.
QuoteWe're not talking about pools that are just for women and just for men, we're talking about an hour or two a week just for women and a similar time for men. Similarly not segregated gyms but if women want women only classes (or guys for that matter) then let them have it. I'm fairly sure my old gym had a gay yoga group that included no women.
They can have them I simply will not be joining that gym. I don't like the message that somehow it is preferable to segregate groups.
Anyway this is just my personal preference and my opinion on the issue. I am certainly not out to not allow something that already exists. I am certainly not crazy about the idea of introducing more of this than already exists as some sort of public policy. If people want to segregate based on gender or whatever they can do it themselves.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 06:13:05 PM
Quotefitness classes and parts of the gym - no
Yeah I would never join a gym with gender segregation either just FYI.
Yeah, me neither. Nonetheless, I was surprised to find a "Women's Only" area of Fitness World ( http://www.fitnessworld.ca/ ) a rather ubiquitous brand of gyms in Vancouver. It's not a big selling point (at least directed at me) but apparently some women are more comfortable working the weights in a women-only area.
The question, of course, is whether the fact that you wouldn't want to join such a club means they should be outlawed.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 06:12:27 PMWow an all or nothing arguement. Nice one how original!
Not at all. Do you really think that women only parts of a gym or gender segregated washrooms are that different from gender specific hours at the pool?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2009, 06:46:17 PMFYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
No. There's a difference between gender and sexuality. Also there are practical problems in determining whether someone is straight or homosexual for the purpose of going for a swim.
That said, I don't see it as a black and white issue either, but I do think that it's pretty silly that voluntary gender segregation for something like swimming is considered so abhorrent for people who accept gender segregation without question in other similar circumstances.
For my part, I'm all for mixing and for getting rid of prudish modesty and so on, but I don't think it needs to be enforced on others.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 07:32:35 PM
Not at all. Do you really think that women only parts of a gym or gender segregated washrooms are that different from gender specific hours at the pool?
I do not believe that being in favor of woman only bathrooms means I have to be in favor of women only everything no. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 07:30:54 PM
Yeah, me neither. Nonetheless, I was surprised to find a "Women's Only" area of Fitness World ( http://www.fitnessworld.ca/ ) a rather ubiquitous brand of gyms in Vancouver. It's not a big selling point (at least directed at me) but apparently some women are more comfortable working the weights in a women-only area.
The question, of course, is whether the fact that you wouldn't want to join such a club means they should be outlawed.
True good thing I never said I wanted any such thing.
What the hell I come out against introducing something and suddenly that means I want it outlawed? Huh?
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:21:26 PM
Allowing? I am simply against switching things around to help religious fundamentalists keep their women hidden away. I am not really aware of that law that prevents it.
All I'm saying is that local government run swimming pools should be able to set aside a number of hours a week for single gender swimming, if there's demand for it in their community and it doesn't interfere with their general service. I don't see what's offensive about this.
How is this about fundamentalism?
QuoteAll or nothing is exactly the sort of arguement that says 'well if you are against all female pools you must also be against all female bathrooms'. That is bullshit.
[
But you're arguing for nothing. You're arguing that the state ban public pools from allowing single gender swimming times. Surely you would oppose single sex changing rooms (if they had cubicles, perhaps) or single-sex saunas? What's the difference?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:39:46 PM
But you're arguing for nothing. You're arguing that the state ban public pools from allowing single gender swimming times. Surely you would oppose single sex changing rooms (if they had cubicles, perhaps) or single-sex saunas? What's the difference?
Ok here we go: if we had changing rooms and saunas already in existance everywhere and everybody was fine with it then yes I would not really want to see them made man and woman only all the sudden.
QuoteAll I'm saying is that local government run swimming pools should be able to set aside a number of hours a week for single gender swimming, if there's demand for it in their community and it doesn't interfere with their general service. I don't see what's offensive about this.
How is this about fundamentalism?
I am against it the same reason I would be against single gender schools run by the government. Fortunately over here the government does not do that anymore. If they want to make a boys or girls club they are free to do so. I am not interested in the government accomidating that particular demand, the government should be out to increase integration not introduce segregation.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:41:09 PM
Ok here we go: if we had changing rooms and saunas already in existance everywhere and everybody was fine with it then yes I would not really want to see them made man and woman only all the sudden.
We're not talking about making them 'man and woman only' terribly suddenly (that's all or nothing), we're suggesting that if there's a demand for it in the community then that saunas and changing rooms in gyms should be able to set a period aside that is man and woman only so long as it doesn't interfere with their public service. No more than that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:45:22 PM
We're not talking about making them 'man and woman only' terribly suddenly (that's all or nothing), we're suggesting that if there's a demand for it in the community then that saunas and changing rooms in gyms should be able to set a period aside that is man and woman only so long as it doesn't interfere with their public service. No more than that.
Yes and I am against it. I would not be interested in my tax money subsidizing that sort of service.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:41:09 PM
I am against it the same reason I would be against single gender schools run by the government. Fortunately over here the government does not do that anymore. If they want to make a boys or girls club they are free to do so. I am not interested in the government accomidating that particular demand, the government should be out to increase integration not introduce segregation.
We have single gender state schools over here. It's nothing to do with religion generally. I don't like them because from what I remember while girls do slightly better than at mixed schools guys do significantly worse.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:47:51 PM
We have single gender state schools over here. It's nothing to do with religion generally. I don't like them because from what I remember while girls do slightly better than at mixed schools guys do significantly worse.
Well we used to have them to but they have all been integrated over the years. Heck almost all the private single gender schools have been integrated.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:47:51 PM
We have single gender state schools over here. It's nothing to do with religion generally. I don't like them because from what I remember while girls do slightly better than at mixed schools guys do significantly worse.
Well we used to have them to but they have all been integrated over the years. Heck almost all the private single gender schools have been integrated.
That could never happen in this country. Sodomy and fagging are the cornerstones of the best education money can buy :o
(https://blogs.guardian.co.uk/money/eton440.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:46:55 PMYes and I am against it. I would not be interested in my tax money subsidizing that sort of service.
Out of interest would you object state funded leisure centres supporting single-sex teams for non-contact sports like football/soccer. What's the difference in your mind?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:51:57 PM
That could never happen in this country. Sodomy and fagging are the cornerstones of the best education money can buy :o
(https://blogs.guardian.co.uk/money/eton440.jpg)
My Mormon Grandmother once seriously argued that Homosexuality was invented by the British. I argued that she was wrong, but I'm never totally sure
how wrong she was. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:47:51 PM
We have single gender state schools over here. It's nothing to do with religion generally. I don't like them because from what I remember while girls do slightly better than at mixed schools guys do significantly worse.
I looked into this a bit more and, presumably for this reason, most of the comprehensive single sex schools are for girls.
QuoteMy Mormon Grandmother once seriously argued that Homosexuality was invented by the British. I argued that she was wrong, but I'm never totally sure how wrong she was. :D
Of course it's nonsense that we invented it. But it's definitely a part of our cultural inheritance :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 03:29:29 PM
If, from Plato to NATO, Western values boil down to mixed gender swimming in revealing costumes then we've really not much to be proud of.
Oh don't be flippant lad - it doesn't suit you. Sexual hangups is what's behind all this. We've made headways to distance ourselves from that over the centuries; yet the flood of immigrants from less developped parts is endangering this, one accomodation at a time. The same goes for religion, which is creeping back into public life. :x
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 14, 2009, 08:27:07 PM
Oh don't be flippant lad - it doesn't suit you. Sexual hangups is what's behind all this. We've made headways to distance ourselves from that over the centuries; yet the flood of immigrants from less developped parts is endangering this, one accomodation at a time. The same goes for religion, which is creeping back into public life. :x
G.
Neither sexual hangups nor religion have made significant headway in SF. ^_^
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 08:29:00 PM
Neither sexual hangups or religion have made significant headway in SF. ^_^
Quick, Brain, get him!
Quote from: Grallon on August 14, 2009, 08:27:07 PM
Oh don't be flippant lad - it doesn't suit you.
I find it difficult to take a couple of hours a week at a few swimming pools in any other way. It's not exactly the thin end of Islamofascism :p
I think this is a classic case of missing the wood for the trees. Your argument is to avoid appeasing the hard-liners, and I agree that should be done. But the reason I think it should be done isn't because I think it's a threat to Western values, I've far more faith in Western values than that; I think appeasing the hardliners gives them a status they don't deserve. It grants the state's approval on the most extreme while ignoring most Muslims. I don't think we should refuse to allow this because someone are forced to wear the niqab, but that it should be allowed because some women choose to wear the headscarf.
There are certain things hardliners demand in the name of Islam that are more aimed at enforcing their version of Islam on other Muslims. This isn't one of them, this is a genuine, reasonable problem with a multi-cultural society that deserves a reasonable response. I'd also add that although this may appease hardliners I think the cost is minimal to the benefit of getting women who live in that sort of tyrannical household away from it for an hour or two a week and in the company of other women. I think that's a good side-effect.
QuoteSexual hangups is what's behind all this.
And who said Muslims couldn't integrate into English life.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 07:30:54 PM
Yeah, me neither. Nonetheless, I was surprised to find a "Women's Only" area of Fitness World ( http://www.fitnessworld.ca/ ) a rather ubiquitous brand of gyms in Vancouver. It's not a big selling point (at least directed at me) but apparently some women are more comfortable working the weights in a women-only area.
The question, of course, is whether the fact that you wouldn't want to join such a club means they should be outlawed.
Oh, this would be wonderful. Too bad there isn't one of these gyms around here. :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:49:30 PM
Well we used to have them to but they have all been integrated over the years. Heck almost all the private single gender schools have been integrated.
We have a private all-girls school here in Champaign/Urbana. I think there's a government-subsidized boys' boarding school nearby, too, but I'm not positive on that. (Kind of a reform school for boys only.)
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2009, 10:36:04 PM
Oh, this would be wonderful. Too bad there isn't one of these gyms around here. :(
http://www.champaigncurves.com/
There ya go
and:
http://www.curves.com/locations/map.php?id=011004501535E
There ya go
What is the problem anyway? We don't bite. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:55:53 PM
Out of interest would you object state funded leisure centres supporting single-sex teams for non-contact sports like football/soccer. What's the difference in your mind?
Well that is a question of competitive fairness.
But hey I play on a coed team so you got nothing on me. And it is totally fair in my case since I suck and tons of women are better than me.
I am seriously going to have to justify every single instance of this so you can prove...I don't know...that I should support segregating other things that are not presently segregated?
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 11:05:16 PM
I am seriously going to have to justify every single instance of this so you can prove...I don't know...that I should support segregating other things that are not presently segregated?
No. I've got to problems with your view that I don't understand. Because you don't seem to buy into the Marty/Ivan/Grallon 'REPUBLIQUE EN DANGER!' view. So I can't get where you're coming from.
Why is swimming different? Your problem seems to be with swimming and, so far as I can tell, this is because you're basically conservative on this. Because it's generally been mixed you don't think it should now be segregated at any time, even for an hour or two a week. That's why I ask about sport, something that's generally been segregated and about things like leisure centres and saunas which have always allowed for segregation. Because if you've problems with them on the public purse then it's not a conservative view then your opinion's presumably that things shouldn't be segregated at all. In which case I think Jacob's question is relevant: is there a limit? I think you've suggest toilets could be it.
The other thing is that because I don't think you're one of the last best hopes for western values, whether the issue is gender segregation. Do you have an issue with time set aside for the elderly, or de facto women only groups like 'mother and children' swimming times?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 11:13:51 PM
No. I've got to problems with your view that I don't understand. Because you don't seem to buy into the Marty/Ivan/Grallon 'REPUBLIQUE EN DANGER!' view. So I can't get where you're coming from.
Why is swimming different? Your problem seems to be with swimming and, so far as I can tell, this is because you're basically conservative on this. Because it's generally been mixed you don't think it should now be segregated at any time, even for an hour or two a week. That's why I ask about sport, something that's generally been segregated and about things like leisure centres and saunas which have always allowed for segregation. Because if you've problems with them on the public purse then it's not a conservative view then your opinion's presumably that things shouldn't be segregated at all. In which case I think Jacob's question is relevant: is there a limit? I think you've suggest toilets could be it.
Ok why should swimming be segregated? I just don't get the point beyond some bullshit about how having men around is oh so horrible. Why should I support it? The only thing I can see is some irrational fear of an entire gender or some middle eastern cultural value. I think I need more than that. I need a reason to do something and to me it just seems regressive.
Quoteor de facto women only groups like 'mother and children' swimming times?
Ok why force the fathers to stay out? Too dangerous?
As for the elderly thing...well I doubt that would ever happen. The elderly would probably like to bring their grandkids and families and such along.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 11:28:43 PM
Ok why should swimming be segregated? I just don't get the point beyond some bullshit about how having men around is oh so horrible. Why should I support it? The only thing I can see is some irrational fear of an entire gender or some middle eastern cultural value. I think I need more than that.
It shouldn't be segregated. But if a group of women want to be able to swim without men in the pool they should be able to. Whether the reason is religion or insecurity or just that they feel more comfortable with the 'girls', when they're wearing a bikini seems irrelevant to me.
I really don't think fear's really a part of it.
QuoteOk why force the fathers to stay out? Too dangerous?
No. Because women, even (especially?) mothers, don't necessarily always want male company at all times. Sometimes they just want to spend time without them and when they've got a young kid it's good to go to something like that like because the kids will be catered for.
Edit: Also there are family times. But if the dad's there then it is a bunch of families in the pool. If the dad's aren't there (or rather the couples aren't there) then it's more likely to be a social thing without the self-contained family.
Quote
As for the elderly thing...well I doubt that would ever happen. The elderly would probably like to bring their grandkids and families and such along.
The elderly thing does happen in swimming pools I've been to in the UK. OAP only, just like the kids only time. It's a social thing I think as much as anything. Not all elderly people really have a family or grandkids. Swimming helps them keep active and get out of the house and see people. I think it's a really good thing actually. With the elderly the other thing is that they probably want to avoid pools at normal times (without their family) because a lot of them worry about teenagers bombing off the diving board, or people running around.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 11:39:54 PM
It shouldn't be segregated. But if a group of women want to be able to swim without men in the pool they should be able to. Whether the reason is religion or insecurity or just that they feel more comfortable with the 'girls', when they're wearing a bikini seems irrelevant to me.
I really don't think fear's really a part of it.
Then they should get their own pool / start their own pool club.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 11:41:52 PM
Then they should get their own pool / start their own pool club.
But most pools in this country that aren't terribly expensive are in the town's leisure centre run by the local authority. They exist to serve their community. When there's a demand in the community for single sex swimming then they'll arrange it for x number of hours a week.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 11:50:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 11:41:52 PM
Then they should get their own pool / start their own pool club.
But most pools in this country that aren't terribly expensive are in the town's leisure centre run by the local authority. They exist to serve their community. When there's a demand in the community for single sex swimming then they'll arrange it for x number of hours a week.
Demands from the community is not sufficient reason.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:41:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 14, 2009, 06:34:55 AM
Also, for what it's worth, I could see benefit in gender segregated swimming, particularly for women who are either embarassed by their looks or annoyed by people like me ogling them.
Sure that is what private pools are for. Anyway maybe these women should grow up, be adults, and get over it? I don't really like the idea my ability to swim at a public pool has to be restricted to accomadate insecure people or some sort of foreign cultural value.
Yeah, I don't see exactly what's stopping mosques from building their own swimming pools and enforcing their own rules. The YMCA has thousands of pools, and are perfectly capable of telling people what they can and cannot wear inside them.
Still, until someone tells me why burkinis should not be allowed at the discretion of the woman bather--and I mean a why that does not rely on political ideology, but demonstrates that as a practical matter they are unsafe or unhygienic--I can't really support a decision that deprives human beings of their ability to choose what they can and cannot wear.
I've just found and read an article on this and I've no problem with it. It's nothing to do with Islam (maybe tangenitally) and more to do with horrifying French pool rules:
QuoteThe police refused to accept the complaint on the grounds that the lifeguard was just enforcing the rules that apply in all French public pools. Women must wear swimsuits and men must wear brief trunks -- Speedos -- rather than shorts, which are said to be more likely to harbour bacteria.
In which case I think the real issue is enforced segregation of ugly and non-ugly swimmers.
Edit: I remember a friend complaining that when he was in France he was made to get some speedos. This explains it. I thought he was in a weird semi-nudist resort that had problems with shorts. Good God :bleeding:
That at least is a practical reason, if not a particularly compelling one...
I mean, I wonder, do people often get ill from "pool germs" in France? Does the whole country have AIDS or something?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2009, 01:24:41 AM
I've just found and read an article on this and I've no problem with it. It's nothing to do with Islam (maybe tangenitally) and more to do with horrifying French pool rules:
QuoteThe police refused to accept the complaint on the grounds that the lifeguard was just enforcing the rules that apply in all French public pools. Women must wear swimsuits and men must wear brief trunks -- Speedos -- rather than shorts, which are said to be more likely to harbour bacteria.
In which case I think the real issue is enforced segregation of ugly and non-ugly swimmers.
Edit: I remember a friend complaining that when he was in France he was made to get some speedos. This explains it. I thought he was in a weird semi-nudist resort that had problems with shorts. Good God :bleeding:
Yep, that's the official rules.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 11:00:24 PM
http://www.champaigncurves.com/
There ya go
and:
http://www.curves.com/locations/map.php?id=011004501535E
There ya go
I don't like Curves. That's a set routine done the same every day. I'd prefer a regular gym sans men. Preferably with a pool. :P
Quote
What is the problem anyway? We don't bite. :(
I'm an overweight woman approaching 40. I'm already insecure about how I look and how men see me. The last thing I want is for men to witness me struggling through a workout routine, sweating like a cow, barely able to keep up. Add the adorable, perky little 20-something women that seem to populate these places, where the men ogle them openly while wrinkling their noses at the likes of me (whether for real or in my imagination, it's irrelevant), and you've got a set up of pure hell.
Let me go work out in peace, so I can just get through the damn exercises without worrying about if I look fat, out of shape, or hideous to any men around while doing so. I know I look fat; that's why I'm at the stupid gym to begin with.
And I'll add this: a woman-only swim time sounds heavenly. I could wear a bikini and tan without worrying how horrible I look, because I couldn't care less what women think about that. I could swim without swim shorts because I wouldn't have to worry about unsightly thigh fat or *coughs* unexpected hairs popping out.
You have no idea how different going to a pool is for women than it is for men. You throw on a pair of shorts and hit the water. We spend hours shaving, prepping, doing sit-ups, etc., before we ever get to the pool, and believe me, we don't do it for the other women who are going to be there.
I like to leave a Baby Ruth bar in the pool.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 12:46:24 AM
Demands from the community is not sufficient reason.
Why not? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2009, 01:24:41 AM
I've just found and read an article on this and I've no problem with it. It's nothing to do with Islam (maybe tangenitally) and more to do with horrifying French pool rules:
QuoteThe police refused to accept the complaint on the grounds that the lifeguard was just enforcing the rules that apply in all French public pools. Women must wear swimsuits and men must wear brief trunks -- Speedos -- rather than shorts, which are said to be more likely to harbour bacteria.
In which case I think the real issue is enforced segregation of ugly and non-ugly swimmers.
Edit: I remember a friend complaining that when he was in France he was made to get some speedos. This explains it. I thought he was in a weird semi-nudist resort that had problems with shorts. Good God :bleeding:
Yeah, I'll never set foot in a French pool. First, I've no desire to swim without swim shorts, and second, I really have no desire to see a bunch of men in Speedos. :x
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 09:15:29 PM
... This isn't one of them, this is a genuine, reasonable problem with a multi-cultural society that deserves a reasonable response.
No it isn't and no it doesn't. I reject all forms of multiculuralism. If you choose to immigrate into a different society you must adopt its customs, period. No accomodation under any circumstances.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 15, 2009, 08:25:08 AM
No it isn't and no it doesn't. I reject all forms of multiculuralism. If you choose to immigrate into a different society you must adopt its customs, period. No accomodation under any circumstances.
G.
How painfully dull. :(
A feminist who does not collaborate with islamos, now that's nice for a change :)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f953d3a-8933-11de-b50f-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f953d3a-8933-11de-b50f-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1)
French minister calls for full ban on burka
By Ben Hall in Paris
Published: August 15 2009 03:00 | Last updated: August 15 2009 03:00
An outright ban of the wearing of the burka in France would help stem the spread of the "cancer" of radical Islam, according to the country's Muslim minister for urban regeneration.
Fadela Amara, who is of Algerian descent, said the veil and headscarf combination covering everything but the eyes represented "the oppression of women, their enslavement, their humiliation".
In an interview with the Financial Times, Ms Amara said she was "in favour of the burka not existing in my country".
Along with sexual oppression and poverty, she said, Muslim women suffered "a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity, the presence of fundamentalist groups who continue to propagate their discourse".
France was a beacon for an enlightened Islam at ease with modernity, so it was necessary to fight the "gangrene, the cancer of radical Islam which completely distorts the message of Islam", she said.
Getting rid of the burka would help women to stand up to the extremists within their communities, she argued.
"The vast majority of Muslims are against the burka. It is obvious why. Those who have struggled for women's rights back home in their own countries - I'm thinking particularly of Algeria - we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties."
The sight of women wearing the burka, still a small minority, has stirred up an intense political debate in France. The country's parliament last month set up a committee to look into the wearing of the burka and similar headwear, such as the niqab, and to determine whether it is compatible with France's republican tradition of equality between men and women.
Some politicians, including Ms Amara, a former women's rights campaigner, want an outright ban on the garment. President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June that the burka "will not be welcome on the territory of the republic", although he stopped short of calling for its prohibition.
Ms Amara said she understood those who argued that an outright ban would be difficult to apply. But she did not agree that prohibition would simply trap burka-wearing women behind closed doors.
The same arguments against such a ban were made when France introduced legislation against the wearing of the veil [and religious items such as crosses or skullcaps] in schools and by public employees in 2004. But the move had helped Muslim women to face up to male chauvinism in their communities, Ms Amara said.
She also said she did not regard the burka as a religious symbol or as a piece of clothing but instead as an instrument of subordination used by Islamic fundamentalists.
Ms Amara added: "The burka represents not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:38:20 PM
I do not believe that being in favor of woman only bathrooms means I have to be in favor of women only everything no. :rolleyes:
I prefer unisex, single-occupant bathrooms myself.
Quote from: merithyn on August 15, 2009, 08:16:54 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 12:46:24 AM
Demands from the community is not sufficient reason.
Why not? :huh:
What if the community of your democratic, liberal country is populated by bigots? By racists? By pedophiles?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
What if the community of your democratic, liberal country is populated by bigots? By racists? By pedophiles?
Then you end up with bigoted, racist, pedophile laws. That's how democracy works.
Quote from: ulmont on August 15, 2009, 12:52:25 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
What if the community of your democratic, liberal country is populated by bigots? By racists? By pedophiles?
Then you end up with bigoted, racist, pedophile laws. That's how democracy works.
France is not a collection of city-states or neighbourhood states. I guess it means France isn't really democratic. It doesn't really bother me either. :frog:
lol the frog smilie is called zoupa :lol:
I feel sorta lonely though, am I the only frog on languish?
Greyfox and Grallon are still around.
Valmy, too.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 01:01:12 PM
lol the frog smilie is called zoupa :lol:
I feel sorta lonely though, am I the only frog on languish?
We're all Francophiles on Languish. Welcome home! :hug:
Oh, and ... :frog:
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:38:20 PM
I do not believe that being in favor of woman only bathrooms means I have to be in favor of women only everything no. :rolleyes:
Ah, the "all or nothing" argument! :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on August 15, 2009, 08:12:26 AM
I'm an overweight woman approaching 40. I'm already insecure about how I look and how men see me. The last thing I want is for men to witness me struggling through a workout routine, sweating like a cow, barely able to keep up. Add the adorable, perky little 20-something women that seem to populate these places, where the men ogle them openly while wrinkling their noses at the likes of me (whether for real or in my imagination, it's irrelevant), and you've got a set up of pure hell.
Where do you go? The local college gym? Gym bunnies are us? Because I usually see a whole range of ages and shapes. Besides 20-somethings are notoriously lazy and I highly doubt they all go to the gym as regularly as you think. I certainly struggled keeping a work out routine when I was in my 20s and heck I simply didn't need to as much.
While I certainly may note a woman is attractive I am there to do my work out and leave. Secondly shouldn't it be us the men who should feel insecure we have to struggle through routines? We are the ones who are supposed to be macho macho super confident whatevers. I just have a very hard time accepting the fact that you really cannot go out in public without worrying that much what perfect strangers think of you...who cares? Your husband is probably way hotter than those losers you are worried about judging you.
Finally Meri you are cute so it is totally irrational.
QuoteLet me go work out in peace, so I can just get through the damn exercises without worrying about if I look fat, out of shape, or hideous to any men around while doing so. I know I look fat; that's why I'm at the stupid gym to begin with.
Yes and actually I find it rather inspiring when I see overweight people working out. They are trying to take control of their lives and that kicks ass also I am still overweight myself. Also...um correct me if I am wrong but women are WAY more judgemental about each others bodies than we are. Heck look at me and Caliga we would be all over the better endowed women...but in any case why do you care that much what we think?
QuoteAnd I'll add this: a woman-only swim time sounds heavenly. I could wear a bikini and tan without worrying how horrible I look, because I couldn't care less what women think about that. I could swim without swim shorts because I wouldn't have to worry about unsightly thigh fat or *coughs* unexpected hairs popping out.
You have no idea how different going to a pool is for women than it is for men. You throw on a pair of shorts and hit the water. We spend hours shaving, prepping, doing sit-ups, etc., before we ever get to the pool, and believe me, we don't do it for the other women who are going to be there.
Whatever most of the men out there look like shit with their big bellies hanging out. I wish they would spend hours not making the rest of us go blind.
I guess I just don't get it. Why is it oh so horrible for men to judge you but just fine for women to be assholes? What sort of ridiculous double standard is that? I mean it is not like the impression you made on the guy will stay in his mind for more than .00001 seconds and besides we expect most women at the pool to not be 20-something gym bunnies. As I said before alot do not even like 20-something gym bunnies.
This is awesome I haven't had a good discussion like this with Merithyn in a while. :)
Quote from: merithyn on August 15, 2009, 08:12:26 AM
I don't like Curves. That's a set routine done the same every day. I'd prefer a regular gym sans men. Preferably with a pool. :P
A gym with a set routine and no pool? Booooo
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2009, 05:06:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 15, 2009, 08:12:26 AM
I don't like Curves. That's a set routine done the same every day. I'd prefer a regular gym sans men. Preferably with a pool. :P
A gym with a set routine and no pool? Booooo
it is hard to have a pool when they set themselves up in former yogurt shops in strip malls.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2009, 05:22:23 PM
it is hard to have a pool when they set themselves up in former yogurt shops in strip malls.
Yeah well for obvious reasons I have never been in one :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2009, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2009, 05:22:23 PM
it is hard to have a pool when they set themselves up in former yogurt shops in strip malls.
Yeah well for obvious reasons I have never been in one :P
I haven't either. I'd like to streak naked through one however.
Quote from: Grallon on August 15, 2009, 08:25:08 AM
No it isn't and no it doesn't. I reject all forms of multiculuralism. If you choose to immigrate into a different society you must adopt its customs, period. No accomodation under any circumstances.
G.
Surely you've got to distinguish between customs that matter and customs that don't.
Quote from: merithyn on August 15, 2009, 08:12:26 AM
You have no idea how different going to a pool is for women than it is for men. You throw on a pair of shorts and hit the water. We spend hours shaving, prepping, doing sit-ups, etc., before we ever get to the pool, and believe me, we don't do it for the other women who are going to be there.
You know, this isn't at all true. Many men feel the same way. I've known some overweight dudes that were very sensitive about going to the pool. Were they giant pussies? Sure, to an extent, but that's not my point. Their embarassment was understandable, because women judge at least as severely as men, and probably moreso, given their limited reproductive carrying capacity plus having been shaped by the devil and all.
:D
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2009, 06:37:39 PM
You know, this isn't at all true. Many men feel the same way. I've known some overweight dudes that were very sensitive about going to the pool. Were they giant pussies? Sure, to an extent, but that's not my point. Their embarassment was understandable, because women judge at least as severely as men, and probably moreso, given their limited reproductive carrying capacity plus having been shaped by the devil and all.
The world loves a fat man. :)
Quote from: Grallon on August 15, 2009, 08:25:08 AM
No it isn't and no it doesn't. I reject all forms of multiculuralism. If you choose to immigrate into a different society you must adopt its customs, period. No accomodation under any circumstances.
G.
But it is okay for you to be gay in straight society because you never moved?
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
Whatever most of the men out there look like shit with their big bellies hanging out. I wish they would spend hours not making the rest of us go blind.
Men don't care, generally speaking. They have no shame.
I do think women judge other women though. If men gave a girl walking down the street the sort of once over I've seen other women do they'd be called perverts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2009, 11:31:18 PM
Men don't care, generally speaking. They have no shame.
Some are into that, of course.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2009, 09:23:53 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 15, 2009, 08:25:08 AM
No it isn't and no it doesn't. I reject all forms of multiculuralism. If you choose to immigrate into a different society you must adopt its customs, period. No accomodation under any circumstances.
G.
But it is okay for you to be gay in straight society because you never moved?
Not only is his position odd from that perspective, it's also ironic given that he's in Quebec.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2009, 11:48:34 PM
Not only is his position odd from that perspective, it's also ironic given that he's in Quebec.
I thought about that, but I envisioned he'd say that the whole French brouhaha is part of Quebec society and that he is from there.
I live in multicultural Toronto and the candy shop is awesome.
different tastes I guess.
... as for fitness clubs, goto cc's. very cheap and all types. lotsa wimmins stuff too.
.. .when did homosexuals become experts on heterodoxy? do they have an axe to grind or did I just miss the memo again?
AND if you do not have community centres and pools, what you have is called a ... "bad government." :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2009, 11:31:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
Whatever most of the men out there look like shit with their big bellies hanging out. I wish they would spend hours not making the rest of us go blind.
Men don't care, generally speaking. They have no shame.
I do think women judge other women though. If men gave a girl walking down the street the sort of once over I've seen other women do they'd be called perverts.
Yeah, I get that noise all the time. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:30:08 PM
Surely you've got to distinguish between customs that matter and customs that don't.
Surely you recognize that what is being discussed is called segregation? And once you accept the principle of it for small unimportant things, it's only a matter of time before it becomes an option for other things that matter.
What amazes me is that I have to spell this out for you people.
G.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 05:40:37 PM
If you think it's okay to have gender segregated change rooms, gender segregated showers, gender segregated saunas, gender segregated toilets, gender segregated fitness classes and/ or gender segregated areas of the gym, it's pretty hard to make a convincing and consistent case that having gender segregated swimming is oppressive.
Then we should also have gender segregated schools, shops, restaurants, offices, universities, or house rooms.
See, every time I think multiculturalism is not that bad, someone likes you comes around to show me it's an idiocy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2009, 06:46:17 PMFYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
How do you check if someone is gay or straight?
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:42:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2009, 06:46:17 PMFYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
How do you check if someone is gay or straight?
If they hum along to show tunes, gay.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:42:33 AM
How do you check if someone is gay or straight?
Look for the pink triangle?
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:38:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 07:32:35 PM
Not at all. Do you really think that women only parts of a gym or gender segregated washrooms are that different from gender specific hours at the pool?
I do not believe that being in favor of woman only bathrooms means I have to be in favor of women only everything no. :rolleyes:
I'm for gender-segregated bathrooms for one reason: queues. Although in gay bars it seems to be the opposite. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2009, 07:47:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 07:41:09 PM
I am against it the same reason I would be against single gender schools run by the government. Fortunately over here the government does not do that anymore. If they want to make a boys or girls club they are free to do so. I am not interested in the government accomidating that particular demand, the government should be out to increase integration not introduce segregation.
We have single gender state schools over here. It's nothing to do with religion generally. I don't like them because from what I remember while girls do slightly better than at mixed schools guys do significantly worse.
Would you be for the state subsidizing white-only schools, or Christian-only schools? If not, what's the difference with gender?
Quote from: merithyn on August 15, 2009, 08:16:54 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 12:46:24 AM
Demands from the community is not sufficient reason.
Why not? :huh:
Because the community is usually stupid. See: Americans.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 01:00:18 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 15, 2009, 12:52:25 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 15, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
What if the community of your democratic, liberal country is populated by bigots? By racists? By pedophiles?
Then you end up with bigoted, racist, pedophile laws. That's how democracy works.
France is not a collection of city-states or neighbourhood states. I guess it means France isn't really democratic. It doesn't really bother me either. :frog:
Don't worry. The unitarian model of France is much better than "ever fucking county makes its own laws" American nightmare.
French may be many things, but their country is best run in the world.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2009, 09:23:53 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 15, 2009, 08:25:08 AM
No it isn't and no it doesn't. I reject all forms of multiculuralism. If you choose to immigrate into a different society you must adopt its customs, period. No accomodation under any circumstances.
G.
But it is okay for you to be gay in straight society because you never moved?
Gays are a different culture that forms a society? Wow, that's quite interesting. Where do they live? :)
Quote from: saskganesh on August 16, 2009, 03:34:45 AM
.. .when did homosexuals become experts on heterodoxy? do they have an axe to grind or did I just miss the memo again?
Intimate knowledge + sufficient separated-ness allowing for better deconstruction. Gays have always been experts on heterodoxy. Just read Oscar Wilde. :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:41:27 AM
Then we should also have gender segregated schools, shops, restaurants, offices, universities, or house rooms.
We do have gender segregated schools and we used to have gender segregated universities (there's still one female college in Oxford).
Now I know you're big on being out and the minute (which is good news) but I don't think even you wear a small piece of lycra to the office. I think this is far more like saunas, or aerobics classes than it is someone's house.
QuoteWould you be for the state subsidizing white-only schools, or Christian-only schools? If not, what's the difference with gender?
I oppose gender segregated schools because I think they harm boys' education more than the help girls' so they're not worth it. I have no problem with state funding of faith based schools, though I don't know if they're entirely segregated, I think it's generally that you get preference if you're of the appropriate faith.
The only areas I'd have issues with state schools is if they refused to teach national curriculum - eg. I'd oppose a school that tried to give any sort of creationism equal standing with science.
Edit: However this is more like school assembly being religion specific than a segregated single faith school. I've no problem with that.
Assembly at my school was about an hour a week. The Minister from the local Church of Scotland Church would come down and expound on the faith before winding everything up with a 20 minute long prayer (God-damn their lack of a set-prayer book). Catholics were taken into another room with the local Priest who did much the same for Catholicism. There weren't any kids whose parents weren't of another faith or of sufficiently convinced non-faith to pull them out so I don't know what would happen for them.
That seems more like an hour or two of segregated swimming than a school for whites only.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:42:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2009, 06:46:17 PMFYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
How do you check if someone is gay or straight?
Put on a Madonna video.
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2009, 10:26:36 AM
Surely you recognize that what is being discussed is called segregation? And once you accept the principle of it for small unimportant things, it's only a matter of time before it becomes an option for other things that matter.
What amazes me is that I have to spell this out for you people.
G.
In your previous post you said ALL customs must be respected by immigrants. If we're talking about all customs then that includes some that are trivial.
The swimming pool also includes the principle of modesty, considered by many in the West to be a virtue.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2009, 06:37:39 PM
You know, this isn't at all true. Many men feel the same way. I've known some overweight dudes that were very sensitive about going to the pool. Were they giant pussies? Sure, to an extent, but that's not my point. Their embarassment was understandable, because women judge at least as severely as men, and probably moreso, given their limited reproductive carrying capacity plus having been shaped by the devil and all.
I've been thinking about this and I feel sorry for the sensitive fat guys. The girls I understand. They feel a bit chubby one day or are just generally insecure so it's nicer for them to swim in an all-female environment, they feel less insecure there and other women are supportive.
During the male only hours it would take one 16 year old dick to ruin the fat guys time. That seems far more likely in the all-male time than the all-female time :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 02:43:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2009, 06:37:39 PM
You know, this isn't at all true. Many men feel the same way. I've known some overweight dudes that were very sensitive about going to the pool. Were they giant pussies? Sure, to an extent, but that's not my point. Their embarassment was understandable, because women judge at least as severely as men, and probably moreso, given their limited reproductive carrying capacity plus having been shaped by the devil and all.
I've been thinking about this and I feel sorry for the sensitive fat guys. The girls I understand. They feel a bit chubby one day or are just generally insecure so it's nicer for them to swim in an all-female environment, they feel less insecure there and other women are supportive.
During the male only hours it would take one 16 year old dick to ruin the fat guys time. That seems far more likely in the all-male time than the all-female time :(
see, better that everyoen suffers at once and equally.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:42:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2009, 06:46:17 PMFYI I don't see this as a black and white issue. But I would like to address a previous question to you: if women-only swimming hours are an acceptable accomodation for modest women, wouldn't straights-only swimming hours for modest straights also be appropriate?
How do you check if someone is gay or straight?
You make a good point. We really need some sort of identifier.
Perhaps some sort of facial branding.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:42:33 AM
How do you check if someone is gay or straight?
Put one of those Barrister Boy Hardon Meters on everyone as they come in.
Quote from: merithyn on August 15, 2009, 08:12:26 AM
I'm an overweight woman approaching 40. I'm already insecure about how I look and how men see me. The last thing I want is for men to witness me struggling through a workout routine, sweating like a cow, barely able to keep up. Add the adorable, perky little 20-something women that seem to populate these places, where the men ogle them openly while wrinkling their noses at the likes of me (whether for real or in my imagination, it's irrelevant), and you've got a set up of pure hell.
Let me go work out in peace, so I can just get through the damn exercises without worrying about if I look fat, out of shape, or hideous to any men around while doing so. I know I look fat; that's why I'm at the stupid gym to begin with.
And I'll add this: a woman-only swim time sounds heavenly. I could wear a bikini and tan without worrying how horrible I look, because I couldn't care less what women think about that. I could swim without swim shorts because I wouldn't have to worry about unsightly thigh fat or *coughs* unexpected hairs popping out.
You have no idea how different going to a pool is for women than it is for men. You throw on a pair of shorts and hit the water. We spend hours shaving, prepping, doing sit-ups, etc., before we ever get to the pool, and believe me, we don't do it for the other women who are going to be there.
You're giving it way too much importance. If you're hot (and you can be quite HOTT even if you're not a 20 yo bunny) you'll get noticed and I'll glance at you in appreciation, float around and if you give me an opening even make a fool of myself trying to score with you. If you're not, it doesn't matter, because unless you're a monster (which I doubt) I won't notice you at all. You just won't get past the filter.
Unconscious routines make sure I don't waste brain cycles thinking about how fat that random guy is or laughing at how big that chick's ass looks. I'm probably drooling at the nice lady by my side instead (which is a great exercise motivator), or looking at my triceps in the mirror, or focusing on my respiration as I lift weights, or singing along to my MP3 collection ...
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
Where do you go? The local college gym? Gym bunnies are us? Because I usually see a whole range of ages and shapes. Besides 20-somethings are notoriously lazy and I highly doubt they all go to the gym as regularly as you think. I certainly struggled keeping a work out routine when I was in my 20s and heck I simply didn't need to as much.
I don't go, and that's why I'm overweight. :P Seriously, I live in a college town. When I belonged to a gym here, most of the people were already in shape and just wanted to tone up, or were desperately trying to lose those unsightly 10 pounds clinging to their thighs. The overweight folks generally do mall walking and weight watchers.
Quote
While I certainly may note a woman is attractive I am there to do my work out and leave. Secondly shouldn't it be us the men who should feel insecure we have to struggle through routines? We are the ones who are supposed to be macho macho super confident whatevers. I just have a very hard time accepting the fact that you really cannot go out in public without worrying that much what perfect strangers think of you...who cares? Your husband is probably way hotter than those losers you are worried about judging you.
It's not that I don't want guys judging me. I don't want anyone judging me. Making a gym female-only does two things: 1.) takes the men out of the equation, which is the only gender whose opinion matters to me on how I look; and 2.) halves the number of people likely to come.
Quote
Finally Meri you are cute so it is totally irrational.
See, now for that, you get huge huggles. :D
QuoteYes and actually I find it rather inspiring when I see overweight people working out. They are trying to take control of their lives and that kicks ass also I am still overweight myself. Also...um correct me if I am wrong but women are WAY more judgemental about each others bodies than we are. Heck look at me and Caliga we would be all over the better endowed women...but in any case why do you care that much what we think?
I think for me it's more of a sensitivity thing. I don't want anyone watching me while I jiggle, huff and puff my way through a work out. I just seem to care more about whether a guy is watching than a woman. I've had plenty of practice dealing with snide women, and am perfectly capable of ignoring them at will. Petty isn't pretty, as my mom used to say.
QuoteWhatever most of the men out there look like shit with their big bellies hanging out. I wish they would spend hours not making the rest of us go blind.
I guess I just don't get it. Why is it oh so horrible for men to judge you but just fine for women to be assholes? What sort of ridiculous double standard is that? I mean it is not like the impression you made on the guy will stay in his mind for more than .00001 seconds and besides we expect most women at the pool to not be 20-something gym bunnies. As I said before alot do not even like 20-something gym bunnies.
Honestly, most men I know don't even consider that they may be unattractive with that extra 30-40 pounds hanging on them. The ones seem to notice/care are those that are approaching 80-90 pounds overweight. And, let's be real, women are for more forgiving of a few extra pounds on men than men are on women.
Most of the time, I don't give a shit. If I'm hauling my ass out to exercise, whoever is there to watch and laugh can bite said ass. Their opinion means very little to me 90% of the time.
However, the things I said are valid for a lot of women and me during that 10% that I'm feeling particularly overweight/unattractive, and makes the idea of a women-only gym/pool very attractive.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2009, 05:04:25 PM
This is awesome I haven't had a good discussion like this with Merithyn in a while. :)
Ah, damit. Now I have to read the whole thread instead of just reading the last page.
I fucking hate you.
Quote from: Siege on August 16, 2009, 08:09:10 PM
h, damit. Now I have to read the whole thread instead of just reading the last page.
I fucking hate you.
There are links to Miley Cyrus nudie pics somewhere on the front page of the forum. Not gonna tell you which thread.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 08:18:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 16, 2009, 08:09:10 PM
h, damit. Now I have to read the whole thread instead of just reading the last page.
I fucking hate you.
There are links to Miley Cyrus nudie pics somewhere on the front page of the forum. Not gonna tell you which thread.
Ah, damit. Now I have to read the whole first page instead of just reading the usual ones.
I fucking hate you.
Quote from: merithyn on August 16, 2009, 07:14:00 PM
However, the things I said are valid for a lot of women and me during that 10% that I'm feeling particularly overweight/unattractive, and makes the idea of a women-only gym/pool very attractive.
of course the core of the issue is that it can be reasonably suspected that those muslims women are not asking it because of those reasons but because their men (usually) don't allow them to mix because it's against their retarded religion.
In such a case the solution isn't segregation as it is giving in to those medieval views, the solution is making it clear to these men that they're living in the civilised world and that if they don't like it they should pack their bags and go back whence they came from.
The Maghreb and such is big enough as it is, there's no need to make it bigger by adding europe to it.
Just to be clear it's not necessarily to do with mixing (which is extreme) as it is to do with mixing in a piece of lycra.
Is anyone forcing you to read it?
Did anyone force you to read my post? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:08:55 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 17, 2009, 11:40:14 AM
*anti-Islam babble*
:yawn:
I know :(
Edit: We really need a word other than 'Islamophobe' to describe someone like Grallon, because it's nothing more than bigotry now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:22:23 PM
Edit: We really need a word other than 'Islamophobe' to describe someone like Grallon, because it's nothing more than bigotry now.
To the extent that said Muslims agree with the belief that Allah demands all homosexuals be executed by being tossed from the tallest point it seems justified to me.
I mean why shouldn't Muslims be judged by the beliefs they espouse? That strikes me as fair and right. If they said 'gayness is good lets be friends' I bet the Grallons and Martys would be singing a different tune and justifiably so yes?
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 12:30:39 PM
To the extent that said Muslims agree with the belief that Allah demands all homosexuals be executed by being tossed from the tallest point it seems justified to me.
I mean why shouldn't Muslims be judged by the beliefs they espouse? That strikes me as fair and right. If they said 'gayness is good lets be friends' I bet the Grallons and Martys would be singing a different tune and justifiably so yes?
Sounds pretty exhausting to spew venom filth every group that dislikes/hates you...and a bit inane when the issue at hand has nothing to do with sexuality (let alone their hatred of one's sexuality). But that's just me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:22:23 PMEdit: We really need a word other than 'Islamophobe' to describe someone like Grallon, because it's nothing more than bigotry now.
"Virulent misanthrope" or, if you want to get more personal "bitter old queen".
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:34:23 PM
Sounds pretty exhausting to spew venom filth every group that dislikes/hates you...and a bit inane when the issue at hand has nothing to do with sexuality (let alone their hatred of one's sexuality). But that's just me.
Good point. I was just thinking if there was a group who said all white men should die I probably wouldn't be very friendly to them either.
Quote from: Jacob on August 17, 2009, 12:35:25 PM
"Virulent misanthrope" or, if you want to get more personal "bitter old queen".
Only problem is that Crazy_Ivan80 falls into Grallonness in this case and I'm not sure Bitter Old Queen would do him justice. :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on August 16, 2009, 07:14:00 PM
I don't go, and that's why I'm overweight. :P Seriously, I live in a college town. When I belonged to a gym here, most of the people were already in shape and just wanted to tone up, or were desperately trying to lose those unsightly 10 pounds clinging to their thighs. The overweight folks generally do mall walking and weight watchers.
I love weight watchers it is the best. But I digress. Mall walking is lame though don't do it!
QuoteIt's not that I don't want guys judging me. I don't want anyone judging me. Making a gym female-only does two things: 1.) takes the men out of the equation, which is the only gender whose opinion matters to me on how I look; and 2.) halves the number of people likely to come.
I am having a hard time saying anything to this because this seems contradictory.
QuoteSee, now for that, you get huge huggles. :D
:hug:
QuoteMost of the time, I don't give a shit. If I'm hauling my ass out to exercise, whoever is there to watch and laugh can bite said ass. Their opinion means very little to me 90% of the time.
However, the things I said are valid for a lot of women and me during that 10% that I'm feeling particularly overweight/unattractive, and makes the idea of a women-only gym/pool very attractive.
I have to say there is something sort of sweet that you don't want to be seen by men when you are not feeling attractive.
I still don't like the idea because it strikes me that somehow you find us threatening or that me being around women makes them unhappy or something. I guess I sorta take it personally.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 12:37:14 PM
Good point. I was just thinking if there was a group who said all white men should die I probably wouldn't be very friendly to them either.
When does a group speak with one voice?
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:39:48 PM
When does a group speak with one voice?
Usually when they announce they believe what is written in this book and that book says things. Of course Islam, like Judaism, and Christianity is a complex animal with some groups being more willing than others to believe things a bit less literally.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:38:15 PMOnly problem is that Crazy_Ivan80 falls into Grallonness in this case and I'm not sure Bitter Old Queen would do him justice. :lol:
He's Flemish. They're well known to be full of hate.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 12:41:18 PM
Usually when they announce they believe what is written in this book and that book says things.
So the answer would be never? How many of the religions that you then went on to list have individuals who actually believe everything as written? :yeahright:
So your position is that Islam is fine because its adherents do not always follow it? :unsure:
Would you say Nazism was fine because not every party member gassed Jooos as a full-time job?
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:50:58 PM
So the answer would be never? How many of the religions that you then went on to list have individuals who actually believe everything as written? :yeahright:
Didn't I just say that? :unsure:
But Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians state pretty explicitely that they do believe everything as written. Ergo it seems perfectly fair to judge them from that basis. The same would be true and fair for their Muslim equivalents garbon.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2009, 12:54:13 PM
So your position is that Islam is fine because its adherents do not always follow it? :unsure:
Would you say Nazism was fine because not every party member gassed Jooos as a full-time job?
What are you babbling about now? I don't see why I should consider Islam more evil than Christianity, nor do I see why I should view all Muslims/Christians as repugnant as I know that not all of them hate me/people like me. A great deal couldn't give a fuck either way.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 12:55:15 PM
But Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians state pretty explicitely that they do believe everything as written. Ergo it seems perfectly fair to judge them from that basis. The same would be true and fair for their Muslim equivalents garbon.
Well yes I would think it would be alright to hate people who have demonstrated that they hate you. Although all that hatred might not leave you a lot of time for anything else.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 12:55:15 PMDidn't I just say that? :unsure:
But Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians state pretty explicitely that they do believe everything as written. Ergo it seems perfectly fair to judge them from that basis. The same would be true and fair for their Muslim equivalents garbon.
But the thing is, there is no specific evidence that the people who would like to have gender segregated swimming are all fundamentalists who want gay people executed.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:38:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 17, 2009, 12:35:25 PM
"Virulent misanthrope" or, if you want to get more personal "bitter old queen".
Only problem is that Crazy_Ivan80 falls into Grallonness in this case and I'm not sure Bitter Old Queen would do him justice. :lol:
not really. Here too we have muslims demanding seperate swimming hours for their wives because they think they shouldn't mix with infidels, let alone men.
If saying that this is a) medieval and b) wrong is anti-islam then I'll gladly be anti-islam, because I know I'm in the right and you (and those muslims) are in the wrong. Just like people defending the jim-crow-laws were in the wrong, just as the people claiming that your sexuality is an abomination unto god are wrong.
Quote from: Jacob on August 17, 2009, 01:05:48 PM
But the thing is, there is no specific evidence that the people who would like to have gender segregated swimming are all fundamentalists who want gay people executed.
I was talking about the bigotry not necessarily the specific action at hand.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:22:23 PM
Edit: We really need a word other than 'Islamophobe' to describe someone like Grallon, because it's nothing more than bigotry now.
Fortunately for me I don't care one way or another to be labelled bigot or racist. If people want to believe terrorists appear out of nowhere and are not the product of a murderous culture then there's nothing more to be said. *shrug*
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 01:25:28 PM
If people want to believe terrorists appear out of nowhere and are not the product of a murderous culture then there's nothing more to be said. *shrug*
G.
McVeigh. :weep:
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 01:29:04 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 01:25:28 PM
If people want to believe terrorists appear out of nowhere and are not the product of a murderous culture then there's nothing more to be said. *shrug*
G.
McVeigh. :weep:
How many McVeighs in the last 10 years compared to the numbers of murder/ bombing/ raping/ decapitation/ burning/ etc inspired by or claimed in the name of Islam? There is your answer.
And for the record, once again, I'm not saying every single muslim is a terrorist. However I'm saying the culture that produces them is the same that demands women be treated as chattel - including in public swimming pools. The same culture that hang guys like you and me.
What McVeigh did horrified most americans - and he was executed for it. What the 9-11 highjackers did was celebrated across the Muslim World... Look it up, I'm sure you can find videos on Youtube showing people dancing in the streets of Gaza after 9-11.
So no I will not accomodate or compromise with these people.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 12:30:39 PM
To the extent that said Muslims agree with the belief that Allah demands all homosexuals be executed by being tossed from the tallest point it seems justified to me.
I mean why shouldn't Muslims be judged by the beliefs they espouse? That strikes me as fair and right. If they said 'gayness is good lets be friends' I bet the Grallons and Martys would be singing a different tune and justifiably so yes?
Muslims should be judged as individuals by the beliefs they espouse. As I've mentioned in this thread I've a number of Muslim friends none of whom believe that gays should die. Yet, because they choose to wear a headscarf or whatever they pose a mortal threat to 'Western values' and are, in Grallon's words, 'vermin' who shouldn't be allowed to live in this country. I think we empower the extremists when we allow their views to be described as 'Muslim' views rather than what they are, extremist Muslim views.
At the minute I'm staying just off Edgware Road which is the main Arab street in London. That in itself highlights the hetergenous nature of Muslims is indicated simply in the fact that the Arab part of London is the other side of the city from the Pakistani part of London - it may be more mixed in smaller cities. But I see every shade of Islam represented there every day.
A small number of the women wear the niqab, none wear the burqa. I see family groups every day in which the mum wears the niqab and her teenage daughters wear diamante headscarves and pretty shapely clothes. There are couples walking hand in hand, some have both couples wearing a salwaar kameez, the woman in a niqab; others are in jeans and t-shirt, the woman in a headscarf; I've even seen gay couples walking down the street, or sitting at cafes. Many of the women (I'd say equal with the number in the headscarf) don't wear a headscarf or niqab. I've seen those women eating with their parents, even when the mum is wearing a niqab. I can't accept that we condemn an entire group on the basis of a sect within it. I think there's every reason (based on my experiences of Muslims and Muslim areas) to believe that as well as seeing extremist sects in Europe that we're seeing the emergence of a cultural Islam.
Marty and Grallon are sort of different because I think they'd wipe out all religion and all adherents the world over, but I think for others it's something different. I think a lot of these ignored Cassandras have a larger martyr complex than the most extreme sects of Islam and seem to almost relish the prospect of Eurabia. They almost seem to want to be proven right (or to take the 'tough' and in reality deeply inhumane policies they favour) more than they want to save 'Western values'. A lot of them, to me, seem to want, as Alex Massie recently put it, a continent wide confrontation and conflagration.
QuoteSo your position is that Islam is fine because its adherents do not always follow it? :unsure:
Islam is an almost uniquely flexible faith. There are the 5 pillars and that's basically all you need to do to be a Muslim in the broadest possible sense. I mean you don't even have to attend a Mosque, though it's generally believed you should.
You can then choose which Imam or jurisconsult you consider to be most correct. Especially within Shia Islam, which is more centralised, less personalised and more clerical. It has a tradition of numerous Grand Ayatollahs who release interpretations of Islamic rules which often conflict and are considered 'models' which you follow and their support varies but your Mosque will be tied to a larger Mosque run by a more senior cleric tied to a Mosque run by an Ayatollah who is a supporter of that Grand Ayatollah. Yet they generally don't consider each other to be heretics - even if the clerical arguments are fierce. You could even just have a 'guide' and follow Sufi Shia. Khomeini pissed off the clerical establishment in 1990 because he sent a letter to Gorbachev saying now that communism's in the rubbish bin of history you should consider Islam. That's all fine but he recommended that the Islam which might most interest Gorbachev wasn't any standard Shia Islam or even Khomeinism but was a strand of mysticism. Which has always been valid if suspect.
Sunni Islam is different because it doesn't have such a clerical infrastructure and one of the problems, I think, in the UK has been that radical groups have organised boycotts of Mosques with moderate Imams and often protest outside them (thus intimidating the community) until that Imam loses his audience. There's a similar thing in the Catholic church with regular protests every time a service is held at a Church in Soho set up to minister to gay Catholics. But there have been fierce ideological battles within British Islam and between different Mosques.
I think one of the problems we have is actually that European Islam is young, generally speaking. Only 3% of Imams in the UK come from the UK. I think that number's too low, though it's increasing as a generation of British preachers are emerging. They are, on the whole, more moderate than the ones we've hitherto had to import from Saudi Arabia (because they'll pay for it) and other places.
I'm encouraged by the Quilliam Foundation's work (founded by two British ex-Islamists, it's an anti-extremist thinktank) and think there's a lot of hope in the work they're doing.
Quotenot really. Here too we have muslims demanding seperate swimming hours for their wives because they think they shouldn't mix with infidels, let alone men.
Well it's not for Muslims only. Also as I say I know Muslim girls who choose to wear the headscarf who wouldn't swim with men around. In some cases it may be the men dominating, but not in all. And this isn't about absolute gender segregation. So far as I can tell there aren't any calls to gender segregate leisure centre cafes. It's about swimming costumes with lots of men around.
QuoteAnd for the record, once again, I'm not saying every single muslim is a terrorist.
I've read you call Muslims 'vermin' before and stop just short of calling for genocide. In this thread you call them '3rd world savages'.
You're not saying every Muslim is a terrorist but that Muslim culture produces terrorists, therefore Muslim culture needs to be absolutely not tolerated anywhere in the West and presumably weakened in the Middle East.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 02:36:03 PM
Quotenot really. Here too we have muslims demanding seperate swimming hours for their wives because they think they shouldn't mix with infidels, let alone men.
Well it's not for Muslims only. Also as I say I know Muslim girls who choose to wear the headscarf who wouldn't swim with men around. In some cases it may be the men dominating, but not in all. And this isn't about absolute gender segregation. So far as I can tell there aren't any calls to gender segregate leisure centre cafes. It's about swimming costumes with lots of men around.
most of those cafés are already segregated by default due to custom. No quarter should be given as it's about forcing religious taboos unto others, not about swiming costumes with men around.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 17, 2009, 02:41:25 PM
most of those cafés are already segregated by default due to custom. No quarter should be given as it's about forcing religious taboos unto others, not about swiming costumes with men around.
Cafes in community leisure centres aren't and there's no demand for it, so far as I can see.
I'd also say I've not seen a single segregated cafe in a Muslim area.
How are other people being forced by their religious taboos?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 02:36:03 PM
Muslims should be judged as individuals by the beliefs they espouse. As I've mentioned in this thread I've a number of Muslim friends none of whom believe that gays should die.
I have many Christian and Jew and Muslim friends who do not believe that gays should die. However I think it is not a small thing that all those three religions have holy books that quite explicitely say that all gays (as opposed to Lesbians) should be put to death in some way. If you say 'Yes I am a Muslim and yes I believe that Mohammed brought down the word of Allah as dictated by the Arch-Angel Gabriel...but having said that I reject or have a non-literal take on part of those teachings' well that deserves a bit of explanation no?
I mean if Marty cannot be upset at Islam for explicitely stating he should be killed because that would be intolerant...well that is just moronicly tolerant.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 17, 2009, 02:41:25 PM
most of those cafés are already segregated by default due to custom. No quarter should be given as it's about forcing religious taboos unto others, not about swiming costumes with men around.
Cafes in community leisure centres aren't and there's no demand for it, so far as I can see.
I'd also say I've not seen a single segregated cafe in a Muslim area.
How are other people being forced by their religious taboos?
Maybe not in Britian, but over here muslim-frequented cafes are almost always segregated. Not officially, but women know well enough that they're not wanted.
They're forced by having to accomodate segregation, in those cases where some bambi-eyed multiculti fool submits to such stupid requests. Luckily it hasn't happened too often yet, but then even one time is one time too many.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 02:49:55 PM
I have many Christian and Jew and Muslim friends who do not believe that gays should die. However I think it is not a small thing that all those three religions have holy books that quite explicitely say that all gays (as opposed to Lesbians) should be put to death in some way. If you say 'Yes I am a Muslim and yes I believe that Mohammed brought down the word of Allah as dictated by the Arch-Angel Gabriel...but having said that I reject or have a non-literal take on part of those teachings' well that deserves a bit of explanation no?
There's nothing about killing gays in the Quran.
Gays are condemned, sure, as they are in Christianity and, I believe, in slightly more vague terms. But the application of Islamic views on gays generally speaking comes from Hadiths. There's no agreed list of valid Hadiths and so different legal schools have different traditions. Similarly the way of understanding them will be according to different traditions because, for example, Sunni Islam emphasises analogy from the Quran or Hadiths to the modern world, while Shia Islam emphasises the use of 'reason'. The Shia argue that the Sunni tradition takes things out of the context of their times and is inaccurate whereas the use of reason enlightens and there are of course different opinions, different 'models' to follow. There's no perfect analogy (as the Shia would say) but the Shia are basically a bit like Catholics in that they're very devoted to a clerical hierarchy and to scholastic philosophy. The Sunni have the latter without the former.
What really distinguishes Islamic extremism from Christian or Jewish fundamentalism is that while they're basically believing in sola scriptura, the Islamic extremist is actually saying only this particular scholastic tradition.
QuoteMaybe not in Britian, but over here muslim-frequented cafes are almost always segregated. Not officially, but women know well enough that they're not wanted.
As I say I've been frequenting a lot of Arabic cafes lately and as far as I can tell during the days families visit them, same for the early evening. During the night they're mostly old men playing backgammon and dates.
QuoteThey're forced by having to accomodate segregation, in those cases where some bambi-eyed multiculti fool submits to such stupid requests. Luckily it hasn't happened too often yet, but then even one time is one time too many.
They don't have to, they choose to serve their community by allowing women and men to have an hour or two of separate swimming a week. All sorts of women. Meanwhile their cafes remain a place of genders mixing and so on. I don't see the fundamentalist threat.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 02:58:59 PM
There's nothing about killing gays in the Quran.
Gays are condemned, sure, as they are in Christianity and, I believe, in slightly more vague terms. But the application of Islamic views on gays generally speaking comes from Hadiths. There's no agreed list of valid Hadiths and so different legal schools have different traditions. Similarly the way of understanding them will be according to different traditions because, for example, Sunni Islam emphasises analogy from the Quran or Hadiths to the modern world, while Shia Islam emphasises the use of 'reason'. The Shia argue that the Sunni tradition takes things out of the context of their times and is inaccurate whereas the use of reason enlightens and there are of course different opinions, different 'models' to follow. There's no perfect analogy (as the Shia would say) but the Shia are basically a bit like Catholics in that they're very devoted to a clerical hierarchy and to scholastic philosophy. The Sunni have the latter without the former.
What really distinguishes Islamic extremism from Christian or Jewish fundamentalism is that while they're basically believing in sola scriptura, the Islamic extremist is actually saying only this particular scholastic tradition.
Fair enough. I just think it is understandable that people oppose ideas that are fundamentally bad ideas and not pussy foot around. Just because I know some Mormons or Scientologists who are nice guys doesn't mean I cannot denounce Mormonism or Scientology. I honor their right to practice those religions but I certainly do not have to like them.
I don't know that the Quran specifically says gays should be killed, but it definitely says that homosexuality is terrible. Indeed the tale of homosexuality and Lot is written in many places in the Quran (with predictably the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed):
Quote007.080
YUSUFALI: We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?
PICKTHAL: And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?
SHAKIR: And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you?
007.081
YUSUFALI: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."
PICKTHAL: Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.
SHAKIR: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.
Quote026.165
YUSUFALI: "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
PICKTHAL: What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males,
SHAKIR: What! do you come to the males from among the creatures
026.166
YUSUFALI: "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
PICKTHAL: And leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are froward folk.
SHAKIR: And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits.
Quote027.055
YUSUFALI: Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!
PICKTHAL: Must ye needs lust after men instead of women? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.
SHAKIR: What! do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly.
027.058
YUSUFALI: And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)!
PICKTHAL: And We rained a rain upon them. Dreadful is the rain of those who have been warned.
SHAKIR: And We rained on them a rain, and evil was the rain of those who had been warned.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 02:36:03 PM
...
You're not saying every Muslim is a terrorist but that Muslim culture produces terrorists, therefore Muslim culture needs to be absolutely not tolerated anywhere in the West and presumably weakened in the Middle East.
Yes that sums it up. What made many of these people want to leave their countries of origin was, presumably, a desire to better their lot. Yet once arrived here, many start agitating to get back some of the very things that made their countries into shitholes; namely an increase of the presence of religion outside the private sphere - or the segregation of the sexes we were discussing - or a generally more conservative attitude when it comes to morality.
All these exemples were experienced in the past, in one way of another, in most western societies. But the point is we have strived to move beyond that, to outgrow such vestigial hangups. Therefore having a large influx of immigrants who have
not gone through that process only serves to slow us down, or even revert back, as evidenced by your fiery, if pointed, advocacy of segregation between males and females.
G.
We could always take a cue from the Limeys and send them to the States. Just promise Cubans enough toilet paper, and they'll be more than happy to give our Muslims a passport and leave them a few meters from Miami.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 03:06:44 PM
Fair enough. I just think it is understandable that people oppose ideas that are fundamentally bad ideas and not pussy foot around. Just because I know some Mormons or Scientologists who are nice guys doesn't mean I cannot denounce Mormonism or Scientology. I honor their right to practice those religions but I certainly do not have to like them.
No I get that. But I know Muslims who have no issue with the gays and consider themselves Muslim. I think it's perverse for me to say, 'I don't like Islam for these reasons and, clearly you're not a real Muslim because you're not extreme/fundamentalist enough'. I don't understand that when, as I say, Islam is a very flexible religion - I think it's even more flexible than Protestantism. Which doesn't mean you won't get groups declaring other Muslims to be heretics, but that's not important to me.
QuoteI don't know that the Quran specifically says gays should be killed, but it definitely says that homosexuality is terrible.
Yeah. It condemns homosexuality, there's no doubt, but it doesn't set a punishment. The punishments vary depending on the different Hadith traditions and legal traditions.
QuoteYet once arrived here, many start agitating to get back some of the very things that made their countries into shitholes; namely an increase of the presence of religion outside the private sphere - or the segregation of the sexes we were discussing - or a generally more conservative attitude when it comes to morality.
I don't think the conservative morals or religion is what turned various Middle Eastern kleptocracies into shitholes. And other parts of the Muslim world aren't doing too badly in comparison with their neighbours. I mean Malaysia's especially successful.
I don't have problem with religion operating in the public sphere. I think it should. I also don't think a more conservative moral attitude would be a bad thing, I've supported it elsewhere. But then, I don't equate strict secularism and liberal social mores as being our core 'Western values'.
QuoteTherefore having a large influx of immigrants who have not gone through that process only serves to slow us down, or even revert back, as evidenced by your fiery, if pointed, advocacy of segregation between males and females.
If your argument is that it's conservatism and public religion that makes you queasy about Muslims then do you also have a problem with Indians, Africans or Poles? In which case I wonder what it is that's specific to Islam.
I don't support segregation between women. I support local swimming pools being able to choose, if they so wish, to have a few hours a week of segregated swimming as long as it doesn't interfere with the general service they offer to the community.
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 01:25:28 PM...then there's nothing more to be said. *shrug*
Yet, you keep saying it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 02:49:55 PMI mean if Marty cannot be upset at Islam for explicitely stating he should be killed because that would be intolerant...well that is just moronicly tolerant.
Then it seems only fair that Muslims should want Grallon and Marty killed since they call for them to be exterminated also.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 02:58:59 PMAs I say I've been frequenting a lot of Arabic cafes lately and as far as I can tell during the days families visit them, same for the early evening. During the night they're mostly old men playing backgammon and dates.
They don't have to, they choose to serve their community by allowing women and men to have an hour or two of separate swimming a week. All sorts of women. Meanwhile their cafes remain a place of genders mixing and so on. I don't see the fundamentalist threat.
There you go bringing reality into the discussion again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 04:18:36 PM
...
I don't have problem with religion operating in the public sphere. I think it should. I also don't think a more conservative moral attitude would be a bad thing, I've supported it elsewhere. But then, I don't equate strict secularism and liberal social mores as being our core 'Western values'.
You can't be serious! The last time religion had its way here priests were lording it over everyone, calling down the wrath of their moongod over anyone speaking against their teachings. They used to barge into people's lives telling women to stop wanting a carreer and stay home popping out kids. Christ! You're Irish and Ireland wasn't that much different from Quebec in that regard not so long ago. You should know better!
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 04:18:36 PM
If your argument is that it's conservatism and public religion that makes you queasy about Muslims then do you also have a problem with Indians, Africans or Poles? In which case I wonder what it is that's specific to Islam.
Personally I'd stop all immigration from any so-called 'traditional' societies since their citizens seem to have a hard time adjusting to a modern lifestyle.
As for Islam' specificity - it kills! Plain and simple. Those christian nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics are sent to jail or executed or put in psychiatric wards when caught. Muslim nutjobs are hailed as martyrs, heros and freedom fighters...
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 04:18:36 PM
I don't support segregation between women. I support local swimming pools being able to choose, if they so wish, to have a few hours a week of segregated swimming as long as it doesn't interfere with the general service they offer to the community.
I can't beleive you don't see that conceding on this point is an opening for further concessions. Need I remind you the (barely avoided) demand for Sharia based tribunals here a few years ago?
Shades of Chamberlain!
G.
Quote from: Jacob on August 17, 2009, 04:27:44 PM
There you go bringing reality into the discussion again.
We all live the reality of our choosing. I choose the see the world as it is rather than with rosy eyewear.
G.
Shame that you're looking out a dirty window and can barely see the world. :(
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 04:44:03 PM
You can't be serious! The last time religion had its way here priests were lording it over everyone, calling down the wrath of their moongod over anyone speaking against their teachings. They used to barge into people's lives telling women to stop wanting a carreer and stay home popping out kids. Christ! You're Irish and Ireland wasn't that much different from Quebec in that regard not so long ago. You should know better!
I've never said that religion should lord over us or that we should be a theocracy. All I've said is that I think it has a role to play in the public sphere. I think our discourse is enriched by the religious perspective.
QuoteAs for Islam' specificity - it kills! Plain and simple. Those christian nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics are sent to jail or executed or put in psychiatric wards when caught. Muslim nutjobs are hailed as martyrs, heros and freedom fighters...
Okay but your views aren't really specific. Perhaps a little bit harsher on Islam but generally against migration from 'traditional societies' overall?
QuoteI can't beleive you don't see that conceding on this point is an opening for further concessions. Need I remind you the (barely avoided) demand for Sharia based tribunals here a few years ago?
I'd have no problems with Sharia based tribunals on the model of the Beth Din in this country.
QuoteShades of Chamberlain!
Not at all. We shall fight them on the diving boards, we shall fight them on the tiles, we shall fight them in the showers and we shall never surrender!
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 04:46:35 PMWe all live the reality of our choosing. I choose the see the world as it is rather than with rosy eyewear.
Those are just my observations of the area I'm in. I've not rose-tinted them because I was actually surprised about it. I expected something like the worst bits of Bradford. Very few of the men have beards or wear identifiably Middle Eastern clothes either - which is something I expected because it's quite common in Pakistani areas.
Hmm Sheilbh, while I oppose vigorously denying the Church or any other religious institution a voice, I can't remember a single instance when they've enriched a discussion. Their argument always boils down to: God/Hod/Zeus says so. Which is both puerile and useless. Perhaps you can put forward some examples ...
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2009, 05:03:39 PM
Hmm Sheilbh, while I oppose vigorously denying the Church or any other religious institution a voice, I can't remember a single instance when they've enriched a discussion. Their argument always boils down to: God/Hod/Zeus says so. Which is both puerile and useless. Perhaps you can put forward some examples ...
Well that's all their argument will ever boil down to really, but they can still be interesting about it.
I think there's has been a useful and an important voice on the environment, on the developing world, on certain aspects of the ethics of science and, though I disagree with them to some extent, on issues of life. The debate's maybe different here because, at least, both the Catholic Church and the CofE comment.
I really recommend anything by Jonathan Sacks who's the Chief Rabbi and wonderful commentator:
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 04:55:08 PM
Not at all. We shall fight them on the diving boards, we shall fight them on the tiles, we shall fight them in the showers and we shall never surrender!
:D
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 17, 2009, 11:40:14 AM
of course the core of the issue is that it can be reasonably suspected that those muslims women are not asking it because of those reasons but because their men (usually) don't allow them to mix because it's against their retarded religion.
In such a case the solution isn't segregation as it is giving in to those medieval views, the solution is making it clear to these men that they're living in the civilised world and that if they don't like it they should pack their bags and go back whence they came from.
The Maghreb and such is big enough as it is, there's no need to make it bigger by adding europe to it.
To clarify, at no time was I addressing the Muslim concerns in my replies. But I will now.
I disagree vehemently with extreme Muslims and their code regarding women. However, I have no problem with the idea of moderates of any religion wishing to maintain modesty when around the opposite gender. I know plenty of religions who do not believe in going to public swimming places because they don't believe that men and women should see one another in such a state of undress. That is, to me, a valid concern for these people.
Yes, extreme Muslims take it far beyond that. Yes, extreme Muslims should be hung from the rafters after being eaten alive by rabid dogs. But the concept behind the women only/men only swimming times is sound, even if it's being said to be for one group only.
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2009, 09:39:40 PM
I saw a couple of these at the local pool last weekend.
I admit to staring for a short time, but like everyone else, I got over it fairly quickly. Not sure why the French have a problem with it, other than the French have a serious problem with the burka, too. Basically, the French have a problem with the Islamic religion, it seems.
Actually the French have a problem with religious symbols in general atm. They try very hard to be secular in a predominant Catholic nation. They on paper banned ALL religious dressings in public schools as well.
As Sheilb points out, it is their secularism at work. Just think of the fact that church weddings of any kinds are for show and not legally biding, only City hall weddings have legal significance.
V
Quote from: Jacob on August 17, 2009, 04:25:04 PM
Then it seems only fair that Muslims should want Grallon and Marty killed since they call for them to be exterminated also.
I am not saying that Grallon and Marty are not a tad histrionic and over the top I am just saying their antipathy is not hard to understand.
Quote from: merithyn on August 18, 2009, 07:10:01 AM
Yes, extreme Muslims take it far beyond that. Yes, extreme Muslims should be hung from the rafters after being eaten alive by rabid dogs. But the concept behind the women only/men only swimming times is sound, even if it's being said to be for one group only.
Well we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I am generally not a fan of boys and girls only things. I mean come now haven't women been working for decades to break up male only schools and male only golf clubs and the whole deal? Now you want to turn back the clock?
But hey just because I am opposed to something doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
I think she's just trying to cause trouble. The people who wear burkinis are just trying to get a swim in without causing trouble at home. I can't imagine any genuine very religious woman even contemplating wearing a burkini - I remember a friend who had become muslim, ranting against how leggings were too sexy for girls to wear, and those burkinis are much more revealing.
Quote from: merithyn on August 18, 2009, 07:10:01 AM
Yes, extreme Muslims take it far beyond that. Yes, extreme Muslims should be hung from the rafters after being eaten alive by rabid dogs. But the concept behind the women only/men only swimming times is sound, even if it's being said to be for one group only.
I think there are two reasons to oppose single-sex only swim times:
1. It is imposing an inconvenience, however minor, in that these are swim times that would presumably otherwise be available to the general public. Whereas before (for example) men and women could swim at all the public hours, now men and women are alternatively precluded during "same sex only" hours - all for the dubious benefit of preserving modesty, which most of the public doesn't care about.
2. Another concern here is that it is turning back the clock. In the bad old days, even bars had seperate entrances for women.
I've actually been looking for something similar to the top (no hood) for ages, to stop sunburn on the beech - I wonder if speedo will bring out a version that actually fits?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 09:50:55 AM
I am not saying that Grallon and Marty are not a tad histrionic and over the top I am just saying their antipathy is not hard to understand.
But it is. I don't really see how they get so carried away as to indulge in such irrational thoughts and behavior.
Quote from: swallow on August 18, 2009, 10:51:03 AM
I've actually been looking for something similar to the top (no hood) for ages, to stop sunburn on the beech - I wonder if speedo will bring out a version that actually fits?
They actually exists :) I have them for my kids for the very same reason, to avoid sunburn. They are Aussie and called IIRC sun block and or shark skin :)
V
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 10:28:04 AM
1. It is imposing an inconvenience, however minor, in that these are swim times that would presumably otherwise be available to the general public. Whereas before (for example) men and women could swim at all the public hours, now men and women are alternatively precluded during "same sex only" hours - all for the dubious benefit of preserving modesty, which most of the public doesn't care about.
In the UK public pools can be reserved for private groups as well (schools, water aerobics, pool parties) that aren't open to the public. What's generally the case, I think, is that they say every Saturday afternoon is open to the public and every day between, say, 5-7 is open to the public but that apart from that it varies depending on bookings.
Though I agree. As I say I'd only support this sort of thing if it didn't get in the way or conflict with the pool's general service to the public.
QuoteI remember a friend who had become muslim, ranting against how leggings were too sexy for girls to wear, and those burkinis are much more revealing.
This is true. One of my other observations of Edgware Road is how many young Muslim girls seem to interpret modesty rather interestingly. They seem to think it's about not showing flesh, so a top that goes to your wrists and isn't too low cut and trousers or a skirt that goes to your ankles. However they also seem to think that the tightness of the clothes is entire irrelevent :lol:
It reminds me of a bit in Naguib Mahfuz's Cairo Trilogy (a really great book), which is set in a very conservative household in Cairo at the turn of the century. The patriarch hasn't allowed his wife to leave the house unchaperoned except for occassional visits to her mother. He is upbraided for this by his friends but, a man's home is his castle.
He goes on a business trip and the children of all ages convince his wife to leave the house with her youngest son. He'll take her to the shrine of the martyr Hossein which she's always wanted to visit. Anyway she's getting ready to leave in a long dress with the veil over her face and the maid Umm Hanafi brings her an outdoor cloak, which she's never needed before. The cloak's meant to further obscure her.
Umm Hanafi teaches her how to pull the cloak around her and the children notice that the way it's pulled reveals her curves and the shape of her body in far more detail than if she'd just worn the dress :lol:
Quote from: Valdemar on August 18, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
Quote from: swallow on August 18, 2009, 10:51:03 AM
I've actually been looking for something similar to the top (no hood) for ages, to stop sunburn on the beech - I wonder if speedo will bring out a version that actually fits?
They actually exists :) I have them for my kids for the very same reason, to avoid sunburn. They are Aussie and called IIRC sun block and or shark skin :)
V
Yeah I've seen loads of them on kids in the sun. I've never seen an adult version though :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 01:41:19 PM
Quote from: Valdemar on August 18, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
Quote from: swallow on August 18, 2009, 10:51:03 AM
I've actually been looking for something similar to the top (no hood) for ages, to stop sunburn on the beech - I wonder if speedo will bring out a version that actually fits?
They actually exists :) I have them for my kids for the very same reason, to avoid sunburn. They are Aussie and called IIRC sun block and or shark skin :)
V
Yeah I've seen loads of them on kids in the sun. I've never seen an adult version though :mellow:
They had a variety of sizes on the page when I ordred, incl. two piece sets in at least large teenage sizes...
Dunno if that will suffice for adults though :)
V
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 01:40:47 PM
In the UK public pools can be reserved for private groups as well (schools, water aerobics, pool parties) that aren't open to the public. What's generally the case, I think, is that they say every Saturday afternoon is open to the public and every day between, say, 5-7 is open to the public but that apart from that it varies depending on bookings.
Though I agree. As I say I'd only support this sort of thing if it didn't get in the way or conflict with the pool's general service to the public.
It is similar here - public pools are reserved for classes and the like some hours, and are open to the general public other hours. Sometimes the hours are segregated by use - some hours only serious swimming of laps is allowed, others families can bring the kids to play.
Having a seperate set of segregations based on sex would cut down on what hours are available.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 01:41:19 PM
Yeah I've seen loads of them on kids in the sun. I've never seen an adult version though :mellow:
We have something like that for Carl.
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 01:46:59 PM
It is similar here - public pools are reserved for classes and the like some hours, and are open to the general public other hours. Sometimes the hours are segregated by use - some hours only serious swimming of laps is allowed, others families can bring the kids to play.
Having a seperate set of segregations based on sex would cut down on what hours are available.
I suppose the way I see it is better to have a couple of hours a week per sex in the non-public hours than, say, groups reserving the pool on a gender basis. Which would eat up more time.
We've got the serious swimmers, families, elderly and then in private hours schools classes, mother and child groups, school lifeguard clubs and so on. And then general public. So yeah it sounds much the same.
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 01:46:59 PM
It is similar here - public pools are reserved for classes and the like some hours, and are open to the general public other hours. Sometimes the hours are segregated by use - some hours only serious swimming of laps is allowed, others families can bring the kids to play.
Having a seperate set of segregations based on sex would cut down on what hours are available.
I don't think it's unreasonable to carve off some gender specific time slots if they have "no kids" times or other scheduled times as well. If there's a "everyone can use the pool at all times" policy, fair enough, then you have an even handed argument against gender segregation at times. On the other hand if you have things like "this time is booked by a school, you can't go" and "this time, no kids allowed and at once a week, this pool is 'seniors only'" and so on, then I don't think it's reasonable to say that times with gender segregation should be disallowed because it's inconvenient for some people. If access is limited in various ways to cater to the desires of the community then the desire of those in the community who would like gender segregation should be similarly accommodated, assuming they have the numbers to justify it.
It is similar here - public pools are reserved for classes and the like some hours, and are open to the general public other hours. Sometimes the hours are segregated by use - some hours only serious swimming of laps is allowed, others families can bring the kids to play.
Having a seperate set of segregations based on sex would cut down on what hours are available.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2009, 02:16:43 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable to carve off some gender specific time slots if they have "no kids" times or other scheduled times as well. If there's a "everyone can use the pool at all times" policy, fair enough, then you have an even handed argument against gender segregation at times. On the other hand if you have things like "this time is booked by a school, you can't go" and "this time, no kids allowed and at once a week, this pool is 'seniors only'" and so on, then I don't think it's reasonable to say that times with gender segregation should be disallowed because it's inconvenient for some people. If access is limited in various ways to cater to the desires of the community then the desire of those in the community who would like gender segregation should be similarly accommodated, assuming they have the numbers to justify it.
It is similar here - public pools are reserved for classes and the like some hours, and are open to the general public other hours. Sometimes the hours are segregated by use - some hours only serious swimming of laps is allowed, others families can bring the kids to play.
Having a seperate set of segregations based on sex would cut down on what hours are available.
Can I have white only hours then? If the community desires it and they want to be free of those pesky minorities why wouldn't that be reasonable? The desires of the community must always be accomodated after all.
I know they were in my State for awhile.
So long as the sexists must be accomodated the racists might as well to.
Personally I'd like a HOTT women plus nerd males hour.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2009, 02:30:54 PM
Personally I'd like a HOTT women plus nerd males hour.
Short people hour. So they will not have to be terrorized by the horror of swimming with tall people and be made to feel small.
What about people who don't have sex? When will they swim?
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2009, 02:33:41 PM
What about people who don't have sex? When will they swim?
Asexual hour so they don't have to be exposed to the horror of other's sexual tension? I like it.
Separating public pools based on sex = herding people into gas chambers.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2009, 02:16:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 01:46:59 PM
It is similar here - public pools are reserved for classes and the like some hours, and are open to the general public other hours. Sometimes the hours are segregated by use - some hours only serious swimming of laps is allowed, others families can bring the kids to play.
Having a seperate set of segregations based on sex would cut down on what hours are available.
I don't think it's unreasonable to carve off some gender specific time slots if they have "no kids" times or other scheduled times as well. If there's a "everyone can use the pool at all times" policy, fair enough, then you have an even handed argument against gender segregation at times. On the other hand if you have things like "this time is booked by a school, you can't go" and "this time, no kids allowed and at once a week, this pool is 'seniors only'" and so on, then I don't think it's reasonable to say that times with gender segregation should be disallowed because it's inconvenient for some people. If access is limited in various ways to cater to the desires of the community then the desire of those in the community who would like gender segregation should be similarly accommodated, assuming they have the numbers to justify it.
That's the whole point - having a
new set of segrigations cuts down on the hours that are available. This new group ("gender segregated swimmers" or whatever) has, of necessity, to compete with all of the other existing groups, to their cost.
Given that only a tiny minority actually cares about the "modesty" angle, it is unreasonable to cost everyone hours for their benefit.
If "the general community" requires women to be segrigated then of course you can't stop it, bar human rights legislation and the like. But so far there is no evidence I've seen that any such overwhelming demand exists - it is more about catering to a very tiny (but vocal)
minority of religious immigrants than succumbing to the wishes of "the community" for such a thing, at least here in Canada.
Edit: moreover, the other segrigations are based on
function, not some irrational prejudice. You can't swim laps seriously when kids are playing in the pool.
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
Separating public pools based on sex
Is the same as separating public pools based on gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion and I am not interested in propagating it.
Signs that say 'white/black/women/men' only are silly and I don't get what constructive is really being achieved.
There needs to be a practical reason beyond 'those other people make me uncomfortable and I don't want them here while I swim'
I only feel comfortable swimming around people who recognize the divinity of at least one of the following: Hillary Clinton, Camille Paglia, Angelina Jolie, Kate Walsh, Shirley Manson.
Why have same-sex bathrooms?
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
Given that only a tiny minority actually cares about the "modesty" angle, it is unreasonable to cost everyone hours for their benefit.
I disagree. I think the vast majority of Muslim women would be uncomfortable in a bikini or swimsuit with lots of men around.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 04:27:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
Given that only a tiny minority actually cares about the "modesty" angle, it is unreasonable to cost everyone hours for their benefit.
I disagree. I think the vast majority of Muslim women would be uncomfortable in a bikini or swimsuit with lots of men around.
The vast majority of people in the communities under discussion are not conservatively religious Muslim women.
Also, in point of fact, many Muslim women who come here to Canada at least rather welcome the absence of seperate-but-equal provisions for "modesty", which (if provided) have a way of becomming mandatory.
Particularly the Persian ones. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 04:41:25 PM
The vast majority of people in the communities under discussion are not conservatively religious Muslim women.
Also, in point of fact, many Muslim women who come here to Canada at least rather welcome the absence of seperate-but-equal provisions for "modesty", which (if provided) have a way of becomming mandatory.
Well here, in my experience, it's only areas with a very high Muslim or very high Orthodox Jewish community that have segregated hours. For example Bethnal Green which is famous for it, because it was the first place that had them, has an over 50% Muslim population.
As I say my experience in the UK is that even liberal Muslim women are uncomfortable showing off much flesh. It's not necessarily related to conservatism. Which is why I don't object to it, I oppose the religious conservatives and hardliners presuming to speak for all Muslims in such a way that forces the liberals to change their behaviour,or be classed as almost un-Muslim. I don't think this is one of those cases because it would be of as much use to liberal as to conservatives.
Do you have any examples of those provisions becoming mandatory?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 04:27:59 PM
I disagree. I think the vast majority of Muslim women would be uncomfortable in a bikini or swimsuit with lots of men around.
Well then get that Burkini thing if it bothers them that much.
I swear to God it is not like a freaking swimsuit is that much more revealing than shorts and a T-shirt. Put on a bathing suit....wear a pair of shorts over them. Tons of women do it.
And if it is true that even liberal muslim women are freaked out to swim in the presence of men...well that reflects very badly on Muslims but I do not think that is even true. I worked out and swam at the UT student gym and the Muslim women there had no problem working out and swimming with us even though they covered themselves up and they were mostly foreigners they were not even US citizens, just here for school. If they LIVE in the west they should be able to go farther than students who are actually from the Middle East and will go back there.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 05:03:44 PM
Well then get that Burkini thing if it bothers them that much.
But I don't know if that's allowed :p
In the UK it probably is because we don't force men into Speedos.
QuoteI swear to God it is not like a freaking swimsuit is that much more revealing than shorts and a T-shirt. Put on a bathing suit....wear a pair of shorts over them. Tons of women do it.
I don't know my friends won't wear trousers or a skirt higher than the knee or full short t-shirts either.
QuoteAnd if it is true that even liberal muslim women are freaked out to swim in the presence of men...well that reflects very badly on Muslims but I do not think that is even true. I worked out and swam at the UT student gym and the Muslim women there had no problem working out and swimming with us even though they covered themselves up and they were mostly foreigners they were not even US citizens, just here for school. If they LIVE in the west they should be able to go farther than students who are actually from the Middle East and will go back there.
It's not that they're freaked out. They don't want to do it because they think it would be immodest or revealing of them - and if they've spent much of their lives dressed 'modestly' it probably would be awkward.
Now, personally, I don't mind that. I don't think the headscarf and 'modesty' is necessarily some horrible Middle-Eastern value. I have issues with the niqab and burqa and obviously with women being coerced but, in general I don't assume women wearing the headscarf are shackled to the Mid-East or oppressed by their male relatives. My assumption is that they're trying to live what they believe to be a religious life as well as they can.
Yeah a lot of Middle Eastern Muslims behave differently here than they would at home. Gulf Arabs have a pretty dreadful reputation for coming to London getting trashed and being lecherous with women. The weirdest experience I've had was drinking in a bar with a Saudi Prince (he went to Eton with a uni friend of mine). He had no problem with the gays or anything like that and yet he's a member of a despicably hateful ruling family. He was wearing quite low slung jeans and I noticed he was wearing pink boxers with pictures of cowboys on them. I thought it was an odd choice.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 05:13:15 PM
Now, personally, I don't mind that. I don't think the headscarf and 'modesty' is necessarily some horrible Middle-Eastern value. I have issues with the niqab and burqa and obviously with women being coerced but, in general I don't assume women wearing the headscarf are shackled to the Mid-East or oppressed by their male relatives. My assumption is that they're trying to live what they believe to be a religious life as well as they can.
Well I have a hard time seeing how if I moved to China and was really open to being Chinese but still refuse to do things the Chinese way, how I would NOT be shackled to how I did things in the US? But anyway I actually do not even mind if they wear the freaking full burqa I like to see them out and about with the rest of us Americans. They might never be one of us, and that happens alot for first generation types, but her daughters might.
The old Indian ladies still go everywhere in their Saris but I see their kids fitting in great.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 04:52:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 04:41:25 PM
The vast majority of people in the communities under discussion are not conservatively religious Muslim women.
Also, in point of fact, many Muslim women who come here to Canada at least rather welcome the absence of seperate-but-equal provisions for "modesty", which (if provided) have a way of becomming mandatory.
Well here, in my experience, it's only areas with a very high Muslim or very high Orthodox Jewish community that have segregated hours. For example Bethnal Green which is famous for it, because it was the first place that had them, has an over 50% Muslim population.
As I say my experience in the UK is that even liberal Muslim women are uncomfortable showing off much flesh. It's not necessarily related to conservatism. Which is why I don't object to it, I oppose the religious conservatives and hardliners presuming to speak for all Muslims in such a way that forces the liberals to change their behaviour,or be classed as almost un-Muslim. I don't think this is one of those cases because it would be of as much use to liberal as to conservatives.
Do you have any examples of those provisions becoming mandatory?
What I mean by "mandatory" is exactly the phenominon you mention - once "Muslim segrigation" is an established practice, it has the tendency to force liberal Muslim women to conform or be seen as "non Muslim".
I have exactly the same opinion in respect to Orthodox Jews who don't care to associate with women (if men) or men (if women).
There is a simple solution: if they care enough, they can patronize a private pool that is set up to their specifications.
I know lots of liberal Muslim women, Persians mostly; my best friend is married to one. She would be horrified at the suggestion that Muslim women be segrigated, it would smack of exactly the sort of thing her family fled Iran to
escape.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 02:27:29 PMCan I have white only hours then? If the community desires it and they want to be free of those pesky minorities why wouldn't that be reasonable? The desires of the community must always be accomodated after all.
I know they were in my State for awhile.
So long as the sexists must be accomodated the racists might as well to.
So you are really saying "some women are uncomfortable wearing little clothes around men and would like to be able to swim without feeling sexually objectified" is equivalent to "some white people want to swim by themselves because they think black people are worth less than them and that social status should be enforced"?
But really this is less about immigration than just about my view that the government should not be restricting based on gender, national origin, etc... except when there is a compelling reason to do so.
Even the communities in this country who have basically come here to colonize little Germanies and Mexicos instead of really become Americans have come around eventually in a few generations. The Muslims may be a tougher case simple because they also have a religious thing going on but I am not that worried about them managing to stay cut off forever.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 05:03:44 PMI swear to God it is not like a freaking swimsuit is that much more revealing than shorts and a T-shirt. Put on a bathing suit....wear a pair of shorts over them. Tons of women do it.
You will probably find that many of the women who are uncomfortable with mixed gender swimming tend to wear clothing that covers more than shorts and a t-shirt in most other contexts.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2009, 05:23:51 PM
So you are really saying "some women are uncomfortable wearing little clothes around men and would like to be able to swim without feeling sexually objectified" is equivalent to "some white people want to swim by themselves because they think black people are worth less than them and that social status should be enforced"?
Yes. They are both based on irrational prejudice IMO. Some people feel uncomfortable around other races but that is too bad if you go to the public pool.
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2009, 05:22:31 PMWhat I mean by "mandatory" is exactly the phenominon you mention - once "Muslim segrigation" is an established practice, it has the tendency to force liberal Muslim women to conform or be seen as "non Muslim".
I have exactly the same opinion in respect to Orthodox Jews who don't care to associate with women (if men) or men (if women).
It's a valid point, but I don't think the lines should be drawn around whether it is possible to live like that at all but to encourage
QuoteThere is a simple solution: if they care enough, they can patronize a private pool that is set up to their specifications.
Of course, that is the simple solution. But if a pool or community centre is set up to serve a community, if there's a demand for a specific service why shouldn't it be offered. If, for example (made up numbers) they find that 30% of regular pool users would enjoy a women-only swim and it would also entice an additional increase of 50% in new participants from the community (assuming that those are the sort of numbers that are compelling to management of the pool trying to fulfill a "serve the community" mandate), why not?
QuoteI know lots of liberal Muslim women, Persians mostly; my best friend is married to one. She would be horrified at the suggestion that Muslim women be segrigated, it would smack of exactly the sort of thing her family fled Iran to escape.
I think there's a significant difference between an officially mandated morality from the highest tiers of government and enforced by laws and special police units (Iran) and extending community services to a community in line with their personal values by offering gender segregated swimming once a week for two hours (the hypothetical scenario being discussed).
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 05:26:40 PMYes. They are both based on irrational prejudice IMO. Some people feel uncomfortable around other races but that is too bad if you go to the public pool.
And you don't question yourself questioning yourself the slightest when you as a man tell women that it's irrational of them to feel uncomfortable hanging around you and other men wearing nothing by skintight lycra?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 05:18:49 PM
Well I have a hard time seeing how if I moved to China and was really open to being Chinese but still refuse to do things the Chinese way, how I would NOT be shackled to how I did things in the US? But anyway I actually do not even mind if they wear the freaking full burqa I like to see them out and about with the rest of us Americans. They might never be one of us, and that happens alot for first generation types, but her daughters might.
I disagree with this because it seems to me that you're suggesting that certain Islamic values that have been adapted by different cultures in different ways, such as modesty are somehow antithetical to being Western. So a woman who choose to wear a headscarf can never be 'one of us'. I disagree with that fundamentally.
But, I think that it's at base a level of what we mean by integration and multi-culturalism.
In practice we don't I don't think want immigrants to entirely assimilate and become 'just like us'. I think the distinctiveness of different cultural and religious communities is something we enjoy too much and have enjoyed for too long for us to actually mean it when we say we want them to become like us. It seems to me that what actually happens is that the immigrants' culture eventually becomes a part of our own.
What I mean by this is that if Jews were just like us there would be no 'Jewish humour', despite the fact that that's as important a part of American culture as black music. Similarly in the UK we don't want Indians to stop being Indian because the chicken tikka masala is our national dish. It's also a core part of British and an Anglo-Indian culture in that it doesn't exist in India. It was something created for British palates that's since been re-invented by world-class Anglo-Indian chefs working in London and deli.
Salman Rushdie had an argument with Ngugi wa Thi'ongo (sp?) in the 80s I think. Ngugi said that he was no longer writing literature in English because English was the language he was taught in a colonial system, he was separated from his village because he'd done well in some test and was basically sent to a colonial school. He writes about the class reading Wordsworth's daffodils poem and none of them knowing what a daffodil was and no-one explaining it. Apparently the most popular guess was a small fish. Anyway he said that he was going to spend the rest of his life writing in, I think, Swahili and encouraging Swahili literature.
Rushdie argued against this and said that English wasn't just a colonial language anymore. He had a great line that English is an Indian literary language. In response to that Derek Walcott said, 'and Indian is now a West Indian literary language'. I'd add that now Indian English is an English literary language. The work of writers like Rushdie from the Indian sub-continent, from Africa and from the West Indies is up there with anything else being written in the English language and yet it's different from English-English. But I think we enjoy and have benefited from that.
So I don't think that full-on integration is possible and I don't think anyone really desires it. I don't think we want to see Chinatowns turn into Little England. By an equal degree I don't think we want to see our 'values' (I'm not sure I believe in Western values except as a term so broad as to be useless) overthrown, or communities ghettoised, or the rise of Muslim/Indian/Sikh/Chinese chauvinists within that community dominating them and making any interation impossible.
I suppose what I wonder is what do we mean by integration? What is it we actually want? Is it for women not to wear the burqa and for Gurdwaras to disguise themselves as normal buildings as Catholic Churches did in the 18th and early 19th century?
My suspicion is we want people who behave and believe differently and have a different cultural perspective and even challenge our values but that they don't detest them. But I think that's an insufficient answer. I don't know.
QuoteThe old Indian ladies still go everywhere in their Saris but I see their kids fitting in great.
It's not a religious thing. Sikhs old and young wear turbans.
QuoteThere is a simple solution: if they care enough, they can patronize a private pool that is set up to their specifications.
I think local authority pools are designed to serve the community they're in and that's what they should do, not force people into joining private sector pools. I think this is especially the case in predominately immigrant communities because these are among the poorest in the country, so that's just not practical for them.
Would you object to women's only groups reserving a public pool for an hour? As, say, schools do for classes during term-time?
QuoteI know lots of liberal Muslim women, Persians mostly; my best friend is married to one. She would be horrified at the suggestion that Muslim women be segrigated, it would smack of exactly the sort of thing her family fled Iran to escape.
What about that Muslim women choose to swim with just other women? As I say I'm not saying that the pools should only have segregated swimming hours but they should offer the opportunity if there's the demand in the community, as with other forms of segregation.
My own friends are generally from Malaysia, Bangladesh and South Africa (South African coloureds) so they don't come from the strictest of Islamic societies like Iran or Saudi.
The best part about this whole burkini business is I'm pretty sure I could easily swim for a couple hours without anyone taking a good look at me. Just go at certain hours when there's hardly anyone (I used to swim at 7 AM) and drop the towel close to the pool. Most swimmers will be minding their own business instead of waiting to see how fat your ass is.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2009, 06:42:18 PM
The best part about this whole burkini business is I'm pretty sure I could easily swim for a couple hours without anyone taking a good look at me. Just go at certain hours when there's hardly anyone (I used to swim at 7 AM) and drop the towel close to the pool. Most swimmers will be minding their own business instead of waiting to see how fat your ass is.
That's the best part? :huh:
Sorry, direct translation. But you get what I mean. This is just a non-issue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 06:34:25 PM
I disagree with this because it seems to me that you're suggesting that certain Islamic values that have been adapted by different cultures in different ways, such as modesty are somehow antithetical to being Western. So a woman who choose to wear a headscarf can never be 'one of us'. I disagree with that fundamentally.
Oh a woman can wear a headscarf and be one of us...but they rarely ever do that I can see. The symbolism is meaningful.
QuoteBut, I think that it's at base a level of what we mean by integration and multi-culturalism.
Integrating means being an American first, being descended from Italians second. Multi-culturalism seems to be small colonies of Italians living in America, that I have no interest in really.
QuoteIn practice we don't I don't think want immigrants to entirely assimilate and become 'just like us'. I think the distinctiveness of different cultural and religious communities is something we enjoy too much and have enjoyed for too long for us to actually mean it when we say we want them to become like us. It seems to me that what actually happens is that the immigrants' culture eventually becomes a part of our own.
I think assimilation does not mean some sort of white washing that is ridiculous. Sure little cultural things transfer over, that is what my entire country is built on. Things though have to be sacrificed. But being at home here and being one of the group is easily possible and our culture welcomes them in (most of the time...) and viola Jaron doesn't speak Spanish and is more at home in Oxnard than Monterrey.
QuoteWhat I mean by this is that if Jews were just like us there would be no 'Jewish humour', despite the fact that that's as important a part of American culture as black music.
Yet Jerry Seinfeld and Mel Brooks do not keep Kosher. There are not that many Yiddish speaking Eastern European cultured Orthodox Jews out there in the entertainment industry. They had to join the culture first. That is why it is now a part of the culture and we like to use funny sounding Yiddish words.
QuoteSimilarly in the UK we don't want Indians to stop being Indian because the chicken tikka masala is our national dish. It's also a core part of British and an Anglo-Indian culture in that it doesn't exist in India. It was something created for British palates that's since been re-invented by world-class Anglo-Indian chefs working in London and deli.
Which sort of goes along with what I was trying to say...if they stay separate from us and don't join the club their ability to influence us is a tad smaller no?
QuoteSalman Rushdie had an argument with Ngugi wa Thi'ongo (sp?) in the 80s I think. Ngugi said that he was no longer writing literature in English because English was the language he was taught in a colonial system, he was separated from his village because he'd done well in some test and was basically sent to a colonial school. He writes about the class reading Wordsworth's daffodils poem and none of them knowing what a daffodil was and no-one explaining it. Apparently the most popular guess was a small fish. Anyway he said that he was going to spend the rest of his life writing in, I think, Swahili and encouraging Swahili literature.
Rushdie argued against this and said that English wasn't just a colonial language anymore. He had a great line that English is an Indian literary language. In response to that Derek Walcott said, 'and Indian is now a West Indian literary language'. I'd add that now Indian English is an English literary language. The work of writers like Rushdie from the Indian sub-continent, from Africa and from the West Indies is up there with anything else being written in the English language and yet it's different from English-English. But I think we enjoy and have benefited from that.
You seem to be arguing for the very thing I am arguing for. If nobody integrated how would we then get these weird combos?
QuoteSo I don't think that full-on integration is possible and I don't think anyone really desires it. I don't think we want to see Chinatowns turn into Little England. By an equal degree I don't think we want to see our 'values' (I'm not sure I believe in Western values except as a term so broad as to be useless) overthrown, or communities ghettoised, or the rise of Muslim/Indian/Sikh/Chinese chauvinists within that community dominating them and making any interation impossible.
It is the latter is the primary thing I am talking about. The parents may wear their Saris and Burkas and be afraid to swim with us now...but their daughters will be fine. Ergo accomodating those things really isn't necessary. Likewise I would certainly never outlaw them doing their silly little things keeping men and women separate. They will come around eventually they always do.
Similarly there was no law preventing huge segments of this country reading German newspapers and living in German towns and maintaining an entirely separate German culture for decades...but the government certainly was not going to have public German Universities and start translating the Constitution into German and having the Congressional debates translated into German for German speaking representatives. Everybody expected the Germans to eventually come around and very eventually they did (though in their case it took fighting their homeland in two world wars to do it...especially the second one).
QuoteI suppose what I wonder is what do we mean by integration? What is it we actually want? Is it for women not to wear the burqa and for Gurdwaras to disguise themselves as normal buildings as Catholic Churches did in the 18th and early 19th century?
Women can wear the Burqa but I bet after living in America for a generation or two they will not want to. Integration is what we want because that is how our society grows and evolves.
QuoteMy suspicion is we want people who behave and believe differently and have a different cultural perspective and even challenge our values but that they don't detest them. But I think that's an insufficient answer. I don't know.
Sure they are welcome so long as they eventually join society at large and not remain some distinct part of it. I believe they all will which was exactly the point I was making earlier. I do not think being part of a culture means you are some sort of robot that believes the same thing and has the same perspective on everything either. But very few groups can come to this country and remain separate forever.
QuoteIt's not a religious thing. Sikhs old and young wear turbans.
I never said anything about thinking they were religious but thanks.
The Sikhs and their turbans are a hard case because while you can easily be a Muslim woman and not wear a burqa or a headscarf being a Sikh and not wearing the turban is something else. We shall see.
QuoteI think local authority pools are designed to serve the community they're in and that's what they should do, not force people into joining private sector pools. I think this is especially the case in predominately immigrant communities because these are among the poorest in the country, so that's just not practical for them.
I fail to see how the pools existing free and open to all is somehow forcing people to do anything. We are providing them a service for free, I fail to feel too guilty for not enforcing their own cultural values for them.
QuoteWould you object to women's only groups reserving a public pool for an hour? As, say, schools do for classes during term-time?
I have never heard of such a thing. The pool is public why wouldn't the class just show up and use it? Why would they reserve it?
That makes no sense. I am baffled...they just close the pool and throw everybody out for private parties over there? I mean sometimes we have to move to a different section for lap swimming or swim lessons or something but that is weird.
QuoteWhat about that Muslim women choose to swim with just other women? As I say I'm not saying that the pools should only have segregated swimming hours but they should offer the opportunity if there's the demand in the community, as with other forms of segregation.
Um...what other forms of segregation are you talking about?
As I said our communities demanded all sorts of segregation, yes even gender segregation, but it was ruled unconstitutional and thankfully it remains so.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 07:43:39 PMUm...what other forms of segregation are you talking about?
Family swim time, for example. Or when the pool is reserved for the use of schools.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2009, 07:48:50 PM
Family swim time, for example. Or when the pool is reserved for the use of schools.
I think I can safely show up at a pool and swim when schools are swimming there and families are using it. I have yet to be turned away.
But of course that is not segregation since even if I was turned away it would not be because of gender, race, national origin, etc...
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2009, 05:39:33 PM
And you don't question yourself questioning yourself the slightest when you as a man tell women that it's irrational of them to feel uncomfortable hanging around you and other men wearing nothing by skintight lycra?
Yes. What is rationally bad going to happen to them? Millions of women do that around men everyday and they are just fine.
I would suggest if they do not feel comfortable wearing their bathing suit in public they get another bathing suit or find a way to swim in private.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 07:43:39 PM
Oh a woman can wear a headscarf and be one of us...but they rarely ever do that I can see. The symbolism is meaningful.
I disagree.
QuoteYou seem to be arguing for the very thing I am arguing for. If nobody integrated how would we then get these weird combos?
As I say it depends what you mean by integration. The impression I had, which I may have got wrong, was that you were arguing for a far more maximalist version of integration than I was.
QuoteIt is the latter is the primary thing I am talking about. The parents may wear their Saris and Burkas and be afraid to swim with us now...but their daughters will be fine. Ergo accomodating those things really isn't necessary. Likewise I would certainly never outlaw them doing their silly little things keeping men and women separate. They will come around eventually they always do.
I don't think it's fear. I don't think mixed semi-nudity is anything to do with 'our ways' and I don't think it should be. And I don't think they will come round to it. So I've no problem with accomodating it.
QuoteSimilarly there was no law preventing huge segments of this country reading German newspapers and living in German towns and maintaining an entirely separate German culture for decades...but the government certainly was not going to have public German Universities and start translating the Constitution into German and having the Congressional debates translated into German for German speaking representatives.
I think education's an interesting case. In theory I support education just being an English thing, except for established international schools or the Lycees in London. But I'm very aware that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants have a lot of problems achieving in schools because they don't have English as a mother tongue and so I think there should be a degree of state support for them in language other than English to help support them achieving more in an English education system.
Having said that I've no problem with the French-funded Lycee, or European schools in which English is one of 4-5 languages of instruction (as a rule you have x classes in your first language, x in your second language and x in your third language, they're incredible). I also support schools in Scotland and Wales that are Gaelic or Welsh predominately, but also English. Indeed I know a guy who never spoke English until he was 8.
Quote
Women can wear the Burqa but I bet after living in America for a generation or two they will not want to. Integration is what we want because that is how our society grows and evolves.
Are the the headscarf and 'modest' dress effectively the same as the burqa in your opinion?
QuoteI never said anything about thinking they were religious but thanks.
The Sikhs and their turbans are a hard case because while you can easily be a Muslim woman and not wear a burqa or a headscarf being a Sikh and not wearing the turban is something else. We shall see.
I didn't mean to sound sarky, I meant that wearing a headscarf is religiously motivated as is wearing a turban. A sari isn't at all. So turban and headscarf are better comparison points than headscarf and sari.
QuoteI fail to see how the pools existing free and open to all is somehow forcing people to do anything. We are providing them a service for free, I fail to feel too guilty for not enforcing their own cultural values for them.
They're not free. I think if we have local government services that fail to acknowledge and respond to its community's social values then they're failing. To me gender segregation for an hour or two a week is similar to providing halal food in the cafe in a predominately Muslim area. I don't think the choice should be to not have a service because it refuses to respond to your own cultural demands or go private. I think that generally speaking the state should be responsive to different communities and offer a wide range, as a large company should.
QuoteI have never heard of such a thing. The pool is public why wouldn't the class just show up and use it? Why would they reserve it?
That makes no sense. I am baffled...they just close the pool and throw everybody out for private parties over there? I mean sometimes we have to move to a different section for lap swimming or swim lessons or something but that is weird.
You can reserve the pool for separate occassions in my experience. If there's a local water polo club or a mother and children group they can reserve a pool, yeah. As Malthus and I talked about earlier public pools aren't always open to the public.
Quote
Um...what other forms of segregation are you talking about?
The elderly, family groups and so on.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 08:00:08 PM
Yes. What is rationally bad going to happen to them? Millions of women do that around men everyday and they are just fine.
I would suggest if they do not feel comfortable wearing their bathing suit in public they get another bathing suit or find a way to swim in private.
I mean this in a nice way, but it sounds like you take it as almost a personal affront that women might want to swim without men around.
Is there nothing you do with just male friends?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 08:02:18 PM
The elderly, family groups and so on.
Family groups...how would that work? They walk up to you and find out if you are related and then boot you out if you are not?
The elderly tend to show up to the pool very early in the morning and while they usually have the run of it there is nothing against the rules of somebody else showing up.
In any case only the elderly would really be segregation. Again are you telling me if an old persons grandchild wanted to come along and swim the pool would forbid it?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 08:04:52 PMThe elderly tend to show up to the pool very early in the morning and while they usually have the run of it there is nothing against the rules of somebody else showing up.
In any case only the elderly would really be segregation. Again are you telling me if an old persons grandchild wanted to come along and swim the pool would forbid it?
Yes, during the periods for the elderly. Though I imagine most pools would turn a blind eye to it if they said it was their grandkid. As I said earlier I think it's more aimed at the elderly people who don't have any family, or at least any family in the area who want to go out with them. It's a social thing.
QuoteFamily groups...how would that work? They walk up to you and find out if you are related and then boot you out if you are not?
It's more that that it's a time for people with kids. If you've not got kids with you come back later. Not least because you won't enjoy it unless you're a perv because you won't actually be able to swim because the kids'll be playing mostly.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 08:03:38 PM
I mean this in a nice way, but it sounds like you take it as almost a personal affront that women might want to swim without men around.
Is there nothing you do with just male friends?
I don't like it no. I think I have made it abundantly clear. They are, of course, free to set up their own clubs and exclude me but I am not interested in having some sort of public embrace of sexist and untrue stereotypes like men are dangerous and women need to have private whatever so they can feel safe. That is not a value I am interested in being supported.
And I very very rarely do anything with just male friends. Sometimes there just happen to be just the guys but even then my friend's daughter is usually around. But even if I did I would not want government protection from a female breaking up our fun or whatever.
These public pool rules seem more trouble than they're worth, I think I'll stick to swimming at the gym.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 08:09:36 PM
It's more that that it's a time for people with kids. If you've not got kids with you come back later. Not least because you won't enjoy it unless you're a perv because you won't actually be able to swim because the kids'll be playing mostly.
And how is that different than a pool at any other time? They are usually full of kids.
QuoteYes, during the periods for the elderly. Though I imagine most pools would turn a blind eye to it if they said it was their grandkid. As I said earlier I think it's more aimed at the elderly people who don't have any family, or at least any family in the area who want to go out with them. It's a social thing.
Well I cannot really comment as we do not have anything like that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 18, 2009, 08:15:07 PM
These public pool rules seem more trouble than they're worth, I think I'll stick to swimming at the gym.
They are pretty cool around here. We have natural springs and the like...boy are they cold though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 08:14:42 PMI don't like it no. I think I have made it abundantly clear. They are, of course, free to set up their own clubs and exclude me but I am not interested in having some sort of public embrace of sexist and untrue stereotypes like men are dangerous and women need to have private whatever so they can feel safe. That is not a value I am interested in being supported.
I think there is an element of sexist stereotypes that men are unsafe. I think it's more to do with the view Muslim women have that it's their responsibility to dress and behaving well, in that case. For other women I think it's more to do with their own body image than anything else. And I don't think either are such horrid things.
QuoteAnd I very very rarely do anything with just male friends. Sometimes there just happen to be just the guys but even then my friend's daughter is usually around. But even if I did I would not want government protection from a female breaking up our fun or whatever.
I can't think of anything I'd want to do with only other men that the government would offer to be honest :p
I don't know, I would prefer single-sex hospital wards but that's it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 08:16:02 PM
And how is that different than a pool at any other time? They are usually full of kids.
The pool's normally split in half. One half is for people sho want leisurely swimming and splashing about. The other half is split into lanes and for real swimming.
And the two shall never mix. I once crossed the boundary when I was a kid and got fiercely whistled by the lifeguard :(
People that use pools are retards.
People pee, spit, blow their nose, jerk off, and even shit, in public pools.
:lol: Apparently a holiday resort in the UK has now banned men from wearing Speedos for the sake of 'public decency'. All images are from the article. A bit excessive if you ask me, I think you can tell it's summer. The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6796871.ece
QuoteTide turns in swimwear fashion as men move away from wearing Speedos
Will Pavia
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00601%2FSeedos_1_360_601543a.jpg&hash=81b8300e949a80c3fc207fd1464ac1507a9acdea)
Daniel Craig looks toned on the set of a Bond film
There is a tide in the trunks of men, and it has turned: that will be the conclusion of swimwear scholars when they examine the summer of 2009.
Some will trace the change to the departure of the arch Speedo wearer Cristiano Ronaldo from Manchester United to Spain. Others will no doubt point to the controversy over the emergence of photographic evidence of the next head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, cavorting in his trunks.
Most, however, will settle on the momentous event of this week: the decision of Alton Towers to ban Speedos on the ground of public decency.
It may be that this week comes to be seen as the period when British sympathy for Lycra briefs, already stretched to breaking point, finally snapped. Rosemary Hawthorne, 69, author of Knickers: An Intimate Appraisal, views the ban as an important development in the slow evolution of male swimwear.
"Men's pants and swimwear have a wonderful history but their evolution has been slow compared to women's," she said. "Just look at my husband's trunks. They're 25 years old."
By those standards, the end of Speedo wearing has the significance of a revolution. Even the most addicted users appear to have lapsed into remission.
Doug Slater, 31, an events manager, from Sydenham, southeast London, describes himself as a "reformed Speedo wearer". At the peak of his addiction he owned a pair of briefs, speckled with luminous colours, that he would climb into at the least provocation.
"The amount of stick I got from girlfriends was unbelievable," he said. "There has never been a kind word about my Speedos, though that was no reason to quit."
Now he has reconsidered and this summer has been mostly wearing a pair of white swimming shorts.
Kate Rew, the founder of the Outdoor Swimming Society, has seen men once fiercely attached to their tiny trunks resort to shorts. "Last weekend I was at Lake Windermere to see a friend swim the two-way race there," she said. "He's a big guy, 6ft 2in, 14st of muscle. He got this tiny pair of Speedos out of the car. I said, 'Colin, really?' He put them back and put on some longer ones."
There are, however, a few men who are standing foursquare against the tide of disapproval in their tiny trunks. Some have taken matters even farther. "I get e-mails every week from men saying how much they enjoy their male G-strings," she said.
David Calder, 28, a lifeguard at Gourock outdoor swimming pool at the mouth of the River Clyde west of Glasgow, echoed lifeguards from Devon to Kent, saying that Speedo-wearing was in decline. "But lately we have had people come in with what's basically a thong," he said. "We have to chase them out."
The debate in Britain is not entirely over, however, and in parts of Europe it still rages. Reports from Tenerife suggest a culture clash on the beaches: Russians wearing pant-trunks, Brits in board shorts.
Jean-Claude Tribolet, a spokesman for the French Embassy, said that Speedos were still de rigueur at many French pools though he refused to disclose whether he owned a pair. "I'm a diplomat," he said, indignantly.
A spokesman for the German Embassy said that he would not be seen dead in a pair. Spokeswomen for Greece and Spain said that the trunks were still acceptable and, at the Ukrainian Embassy, Yuliya Belinska, 35, said that they were considered offensive only "in some rural areas".
In an e-mail, she wrote: "In our resort of Crimea, Speedos are quiet common. Sporty man would in most cases opt for Speedos and Ukrainian girls find them very sexy."
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2009, 08:55:25 PM
People that use pools are retards.
People pee, spit, blow their nose, jerk off, and even shit, in public pools.
That's what chlorine is for.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mac.com%2Fdrsoos%2FiApps%2Fpools%2Ffiles%2Fchlorine.gif&hash=28ea9afc35705e040d68f8b65af61c270fac5f10)
:wub:
Also, is it really common for people to shit in pools?
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2009, 02:44:58 AM
Also, is it really common for people to shit in pools?
Only after drinking half a can of Coors Light.
Quote from: Valdemar on August 18, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
Quote from: swallow on August 18, 2009, 10:51:03 AM
I've actually been looking for something similar to the top (no hood) for ages, to stop sunburn on the beech - I wonder if speedo will bring out a version that actually fits?
They actually exists :) I have them for my kids for the very same reason, to avoid sunburn. They are Aussie and called IIRC sun block and or shark skin :)
V
Thats great - I've had a look and they have adult sizes - Thanks Valdemar
Quote from: Valdemar on August 18, 2009, 08:07:22 AM
As Sheilb points out, it is their secularism at work. Just think of the fact that church weddings of any kinds are for show and not legally biding, only City hall weddings have legal significance.
I want this in the U.S. I really truly do.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2009, 07:34:12 PM
No. There's a difference between gender and sexuality. Also there are practical problems in determining whether someone is straight or homosexual for the purpose of going for a swim.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fandrejkoymasky.com%2Fmem%2Fholocaust%2F03%2Fpinktr.jpg&hash=0e2e6d917d38c16f3c9ddc9a3fb3dd049ff92624)
Quote from: Iormlund on August 19, 2009, 02:42:37 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2009, 08:55:25 PM
People that use pools are retards.
People pee, spit, blow their nose, jerk off, and even shit, in public pools.
That's what chlorine is for.
My psoriasis reacts badly to chlorine so I have to use salt-water or oxygenated swimming pools, which are standard in some places, but not the UK :(
Quote from: merithyn on August 19, 2009, 09:41:23 PM
I want this in the U.S. I really truly do.
Um...isn't it like that already? Without the marriage license you can have marriages all day in a church and nobody cares.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 07:40:23 AM
Um...isn't it like that already? Without the marriage license you can have marriages all day in a church and nobody cares.
But a minister or priest can do the "legal" bit. I want them completely separate. If you want to get married, you go down to the courthouse, sign the paperwork, and ta-da! you're married. A civil union. Then, if you want, you go to the church and do that bit.
If everyone had to have a civil union and left the "marriage" bit to the religious types, same-sex marriage would come about much quicker nationwide, I think. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, but regardless, I don't think the state should be involved except at the most business-end of things, i.e. the contract merging two households into one.
Quote from: merithyn on August 20, 2009, 01:01:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 07:40:23 AM
Um...isn't it like that already? Without the marriage license you can have marriages all day in a church and nobody cares.
But a minister or priest can do the "legal" bit. I want them completely separate. If you want to get married, you go down to the courthouse, sign the paperwork, and ta-da! you're married. A civil union. Then, if you want, you go to the church and do that bit.
If everyone had to have a civil union and left the "marriage" bit to the religious types, same-sex marriage would come about much quicker nationwide, I think. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, but regardless, I don't think the state should be involved except at the most business-end of things, i.e. the contract merging two households into one.
I don't think that follows at all. Here in Canada we've had gay marriage a while, and priests and the like can officiate at weddings.
Quote from: merithyn on August 20, 2009, 01:01:57 PM
But a minister or priest can do the "legal" bit. I want them completely separate. If you want to get married, you go down to the courthouse, sign the paperwork, and ta-da! you're married. A civil union. Then, if you want, you go to the church and do that bit.
A minister or priest or guy-who-was-ordained-on-the-internet can marry anybody they want. Indeed religious types have been marrying gay people for decades. The state has to ok it so it is in effect precisely the same as going down to the court house and getting married.
The minister or priest or internet guy has zero say in who the state allows to get married.
This thread is seven years old....where else we talking about this? :huh:
Wow. It is amazing how little this place has changed :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 09:29:04 AM
Wow. It is amazing how little this place has changed :lol:
Place needs new blood.