Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sweatin' the Quran

By Katha Pollitt, The Nation. Posted April 16, 2008.


Harvard's woman-only gym time has the Islamophobes out in full force. But let's get a grip: This isn't about terrorism, Osama bin Laden or burqas.
1887489253e88902c170
muslim women

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Katha Pollitt

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I was all geared up to write a column fulminating against Harvard for setting up women-only hours in one of its gyms because apparently some Muslim women students felt more comfortable exercising away from the eyes of men. Kowtowing to religion! Validating Islam's obsession with female -- and only female -- modesty! Denial of equal gym time to men! When I was an undergraduate, Harvard kept women out of all sorts of good stuff, like convenient places to eat on campus. Until a year before I got there, women were banned from centrally located Lamont Library, supposedly to discourage canoodling in the stacks. All the gyms on campus were single-sex back then, not that I knew where they were. In short, I'm very conscious of the ways single-sex arrangements have historically given men the lion's share of whatever is being divvied up.

Unfortunately for my life as a casuist, I made the mistake of asking my ever-sensible daughter and her friend Lindsey, both college juniors, what they thought. They thought women-only gym time was fine. "It's only six hours a week, Mom," said Sophie. "And the gym is the least used one on campus." What about the principle? "I think it's hard to be a Muslim girl in a co-ed school," Sophie answered. "If this makes it easier, they should have it." "Well, I don't know that it's especially hard for them," Lindsey put in -- here followed a lengthy discussion of the social lives of Muslim and Orthodox Jewish girls. But say you were a male student, I asked, and you showed up to work out at girls-only time? "Well, I would just come back later," said Sophie, or go to another gym. Honestly, Mom, what's the big deal?" So it doesn't bother you that Harvard is making a special arrangement because of religion? "Well, it isn't really doing that," Lindsey said, "because any woman student can use the women-only hours, and Muslim women don't have to use them if they don't want to."

Right. Why hadn't I thought of that? The Harvard gym controversy looks like it's about religion, but really it's about whether women (or men) should have a little bit of separate space in a co-ed university.

But that's not so exciting. Few would be writing about this handful of single-sex gym hours if the request had come from, say, overweight women or shy women or the club of virgins recently written about in the New York Times Magazine. Some co-ed campuses have single-sex dorms -- Cornell has one for women -- to say nothing of sororities, fraternities and single-sex societies like Harvard's ghastly final clubs. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Orthodox Jewish women at Queens College of CUNY asked for one hour of women-only swimming, a request seconded by other women; now Queens has a weekly pool hour for women and one for men as well. Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, St. John's College in Santa Fe, and Kalamazoo College have all experimented with women-only gym times or classes. None of this has aroused a lot of interest from the national opinion industry. Maybe the women writers are too busy exercising at Curves, the ubiquitous women-only chain, while the men writers are off at their Elks lodge.

But this situation is different: it involves Islam (violent, oppressive, sexist) and Harvard (multicultural twits). When I put "Harvard Muslim girls gym" into Google I got 151,000 hits, including articles from as far away as Japan, and bloodcurdling references to Sharia and honor killings, horrified descriptions of women using treadmills in veils and chadors ("a black, woolen blob, an anachronism of the first degree"), calls for lawsuits and physical invasions of Muslim-girl gym time. Martin Luther King was invoked, as were Title IX, feminism, slippery slopes, appeasement, Nazis and did I mention Sharia?


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, islam, harvard

Katha Pollitt is a columnist for The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Single sex gym time is a good idea for anyone.
Posted by: MamaPantz on Apr 16, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest deterrent for any woman stepping foot in any public space is the inevitable sexual harassment from men. So when you want to go to a gym to work out and not be hit on, then making a safe place for women is the only way. Especially for swimming, as you are nearly naked.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think muslim women can be without their headscarves in the presence of females, so this would be the only way they could exercise without being covered.

But the point is, any woman can take advantage of this option to get on with their business without the looming threat of testosterone filled men.

And yes, they should also offer men only time if they wish, as some men might feel more at ease in the company of men.

This isn't discrimination against men, it's addressing the discrimination against women that men inflict on them, and solving the problem.

We already discriminate for bathrooms, and locker rooms. It's basically the same thing.
Discrimination is good when used in a positive way. Sometimes it's necessary for survival, and safety. It's only bad when it's used against someone for no good reason. No one is losing here.

Like most things that must be designated for women, it's only a fraction of the whole, and men get the rest of it, so what's the problem?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mirabelle is Awesome Posted by: easter
How about even
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 17, 2008 1:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another just a thought - would this sum it up better?

"The biggest deterrent for 'any female or male' stepping foot in any public space is the inevitable fear of sexual harassment from some 'males or females."'

That's even more valid, or do male sexually orientated females get a pass on eyeing up the local meat market.

Better yet females should not sheer their armpits, forget about facial, eyebrows, and leg hair. Also they must wear appropriate government issued woollen sack like underwear. As a matter of fact, why not ban augmentation. Oops silly me this isn't about women is it, it's about ignoring the facts of life, and that females need to personally please themselves. It would be a good thing for the gravity challenged don't you think, an almost even playing field.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally some common sense!
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Apr 17, 2008 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The women-only gym time is an option. Women (of every religion) are free to use it or not, as they see fit. I agree that, for fairness' sake, men should have the same option. But nobody is forcing women to work out in gender-segregated groups, so I have no idea why the big stink. I mean, sure, it accommodates Islamic women, but since when is making an accommodation for religion a bad thing? I honestly doubt that anyone would make a similar stink about a request from a Catholic students' organization for a meatless (or fish) option to be served every Friday. Since when is adding options a form of discrimination?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]