York university dean orders accommodation of male student who won't work with women

Pondering wrote:

Fortunate, I reread your statement carefully and I am going to say what I think you mean. I could definitely be wrong.

This is called mirroring and it is supposed to confirm that the listener (me) understands what they are being told. I will repeat in my own words what I think you were saying. Then you can correct me if I misunderstood any part or the whole.

 1) The university is in the wrong because they didn't investigate the situation well enough. For that reason, in this particular case, the professor was correct to refuse the student's request.

 2) If the university had investigated properly and the man's request had been found to be legitimate, then the university's decision to allow him not to join the group would have been correct.

 3) The university's decision would be correct,( letting him avoid the group), not for his sake, but because the majority of people would be better off not having to work with him.

4) In cases like this, when an individual is refusing to associate with certain people, a group of Jewish lesbian aboriginals for example, it serves the greater good to accommodate the greasy wheel student instead of forcing the greasy wheel student to work with the group.

Is that a reasonably fair and complete description of your opinion?

 

Pondering, I in no way, shape or form can believe that you are even attempting to be serious.   

 

I do not require my post to be parsed, either with or without line by line quoting, it does seem that you have an axe to grind here, and I do not plan to accomodate you at all.    

I will, however, if that student's request been real, and had the university decided he would just have to take  his lumps and go f2f with female students, let you be the guinea pig who gets to be his f2f.    

 

If you had piece quoted my statement, you would have also acknowledged my comment was towards the person who put out a pretend scenario, so he got a pretend reply.    

However, if you think that the best case solution for dealing with mysogynists is to force young women to spend time with them, I think you miss the point of my post entirely.   You did understand that what he was looking for was to complete the course solo, independent study, rather than doing any f2f with anyone?   Greasy wheel meaning he could finish it up in isolation, so that his biases and attitude would not be inflicted on other people.   

I see no problem with sending someone like that into isolation so that others do not have to suffer his prejudices.   Others who want to take the class should not have to sit with or interact anyone with the sole intention of making them uncomfortable or shameful just for being born female.     I have no interest in making the majority suffer for the actions of a few, or even just one.   

fortunate wrote:

I do not require my post to be parsed, either with or without line by line quoting, it does seem that you have an axe to grind here, and I do not plan to accomodate you at all.

It is a formal conflict resolution technique to repeat what someone said in your own words to verify that it was correctly understood. (It was mentioned in a rabble reactions thread on getting along.) 

That gives the speaker, you, the chance to correct the listener.  The listener, me, doesn't get to respond until the speaker judges that the listener correctly parsed the speaker's message which indicates genuine understanding of the speaker's message.

When the speaker says okay, yes, you understood me correctly, then the listener becomes the speaker and gets to respond with their own thoughts.

The listener doesn't get to express themselves until after the speaker agrees that the listener understood.

So in our case, as you indicated I still didn't understand correctly, I  would have to keep trying until I correctly expressed your views as judged by you.  I wouldn't get to give my opinion on what you said until you agree that I understood you.

I'm not going to do that now because I'm not staying.

This site let you down.  From many of the things you've said, after being here for five years, I don't think progressives have walked the talk with you. They haven't shared progressive philosophy which you could have then applied to planning your industry in a much more progressive fashion.

That you said this about occupy:

fortunate wrote:

I am not a fan of the Occupy claims, mostly because I work for a living, and can't spend weeks at a time sitting around debating how other people who also work have it so easy.  

Pasted from <http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostitution-and-right-to-defend-it-0?page=6>

.....without a serious reply illustrates that the people on this site have no respect for you.  You fulfil a role.  You are a cause not a person who can be politically informed, debated with.  I have more respect for you than they do because I actually read what you say and challenge you instead of patting you on the head and taking jabs at your opponents for you.  Maybe it's because I am more like you than I am like them.  If they were genuinely progressive people and they were your friends they wouldn't attack you for your views, they would share theirs so you could learn and be a part of the progressive community instead of a cause.

I have more respect for you than I do them. This site is a playground for faux-progressives to bask in mutual appreciation of their brilliant repartee. They have no intention of actually communicating with anyone outside their circle including you.

In any case, I'm gone, accept their support for your cause, have fun, just don't mistake these people for your friends because they aren't. Most of them are not being at all honest about what is coming down the line legally and you need to be prepared. (Unionist is being honest, not sure who else)

Pondering, what you are doing isn't really trying to understand, you are trying to reimagine what i actually posted in some way to discredit or disturb or embarrass me, possibly?  Not sure what, but I certainly do understand the communication techniques you are attempting to use to do that.    

Your idea of communicating, to me, is simply that everyone has to agree with the things that you post.   I can't agree, because i know some of those things are patently untrue, and other assumptions are based on falsified information.     One cannot let that stand if one is to have real communication.    

It isn't necessary to rewrite what someone wrote,  in other words.   You are rewriting the words in order to muddy, not clarify, as nothing that you wrote was what was said.   So how am  i to take that?  Conflict resolution?   What is the conflict supposed to be?    You posted a couple of lines asking others to join you in telling me that my comments had no validity and no place here.     

Are there some rules of conduct and thought that haven't been posted somewhere?   No independent thinking allowed?  Because it seems like when you read it, see it, it upsets you that someone out there in the internet world disagrees with your POV and you can't simply let that go.    

Pondering, I think you mean well, but when you say 'these' people don't know what is coming down the road, so what?   neither do you, although you seem to want others to think you do.   I think all of us have a very good idea of the possibilities, but we are also realistic enough to understand that we do not know what the government might do.   We assume and predict, and discuss, that is all anyone can do at this point.  To pretend otherwise, or have the idea that anyone knows for sure, is unrealistic.    

 

 

@ fortunate

This case could be taken in all sorts of theoretical ways. It has also been taken to the theory that the law is to blame and needs to be changed although there has been no complaint and no legal process whatsoever.

Sure the law says that religious belief so far as this is concerned isn't bound by official dogma. Even so, What actually did happen was that a student made a sexist request in private, claiming a religious reason. He had no official opinion to back up (so until that female Muslim student shows up and makes a request, she is theoretical as well). And when he was told no by a teacher who was distressed at the implications for the school, the student complied and thanked him.

We could tie this up in all kinds of knots over things which which have not happened. And while I think some of those possibilities are worth considering, I think what is more important is that this bad decision came down to money, fear and stupidity - and the willingness to forget consideration for women and the reputation of their instution  (in that they undid an existing settlement without any investigation). It is being roundly mocked as stupid, some legal opinions notwithstanding.

I don't think that stupid decision should be given more importance than it deserves.

Had it been a more weighty request, what would be the problem with going to a negotiated settlement, or even to a tribunal? I think the issue - sexist discrimination in a university - is is worth really consideration, and important enough that it shouldn't come down to guesswork, and making a bad decision just to demonstrate that you're in charge.

 

 

 

 

NDPP wrote:

Are Reasonable Accomodations Reasonable?  -  by Len Rudner

http://www.cija.ca/cooperation/are-reasonable-accommodations-reasonable/

"...Having been a beneficiary of religious accommodation I tend to look on it as a positive process..."

Have to say I do like the final paragraph:

Quote:

Funnily enough, back in the early 70s, I was in martial arts class and asked the Sensei not to assign me a female sparring partner. Mind you, my reasons were different: I simply could not bring myself to hit a woman. The Sensei said that he could not comply because it was a small class and it was important for the women to learn how to defend themselves against much larger opponents. That seemed reasonable and I left the class. Reasonable people will act reasonably if you give them a chance to do so.

I wonder what would have happened if the instructor in the aikido class that's been discussed had simply dismissed himself for part of the class and put the female student in charge?  After all, she's on the verge of getting her black belt so it wouldn't be a stretch.

 

 

what justice are you talking about? i don't get what justice and what "rigged game" you mean?

No... a religious argument MIGHT have more weight if a complainant felt serious enough about it to proceed, or refuse to comply.

And perhaps that is misjudging a person's convictions and not a strict reading of that ruling, but in practical terms, that is precisely what it is.

This incident was settled amicably before the school administration made its decision - a decision that was itself built on sand. It is not a criminal case. To my understanding, if the complainant doesn't want to proceed, it doesn't proceed.

Also, the assumption that a religious concern will automatically lead to a certain outcome leaves out the concern of sexist discrimination, and separation of powers. which may not strictly be rights issues in this case, but in principle are of equal concern. 

They must be at least equal if there is talk of making them superior to religious rights.

So any talk of fait accompli needs to include both sides. And the "rigged game" comment? Simply that this theoretical talk of what WILL happen and why, and what needs to be changed to make sure that doesn't happen both ignores the fact that these laws get weighed and applied, hopefully in a way that makes sense.

There is no legal process here at all, so any talk of what is wrong is premature.

Again, in the case here in Saskatoon, there was a complaint, negotiation, and very nearly a deal that would have settled the matter -  before our council decided to act like boneheads and break it off.

I'd say the issues raised by the York case, should they ever come to an actual tribunal, would require even more careful consideration. I don't see that happening by leaping to conclusions about what might happen. And I wouldn't want to see those assumptions lead to trying to build a legal box to prevent that consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shouldn't run the risk of fucking up the law (or handcuffing the courts) until it is found to be broken, is more my concern.

I don't like it when Stephen Harper does it, and I feel the same even in cases where it might seem to be in favour of issues I support.

And sticking to their guns? Not the only measure, of course (after all, even with the equivalent of a Papal Bull I don't think this should have necessarily been allowed). My point is that for all this weighing of religious concerns, the equally important (at least) implication for women's rights and separation of church and state isn't given equal weight.

Why? because so far there's very little of substance to consider at all, because the student has complied, despite the decision the school made, which so far has come to nothing.

I think that other side of the equation would get a bit more consideration if there was a serious prospect of this landing before a human rights tribunal.

 

 

 

Paladin1 wrote:

I'm quite surprised at the story of the Aikido student being told she could not train with another student.  By the instructors allowing the male student to choose not to train with the female student they are in essence contributing to her being less prepared to defend herself if she were to be attacked.   At my school we had two students start dating. Sure enough they had a bad break up and brought it to the dojo. The guy made a scene and told the insutructor he didn't want to train with the female student. He was refunded and told to leave until he decided he was able to train with every student in the school. 

It's also a pain in the ass to juggle when it comes to sparing and practicing.

Way back when I started dating one of the brown belts in my club - no biggie when things were going well but, when things came apart it wasn't quite as pleasant, at least at a personal level.  But we both kept it completely out of the dojo.  BTW, it was never nasty.  Just a "we're not together" moment.

Good Gawd.

Bacchus wrote:

LOL you wouldnt have enjoyed this one quite so much. It consisted of listing the various civilizations in history, why they were bad because the men ruled, concluding that men were scum, then all of them looking to me for my opinion and me having to apologize for all men.

 

Funny thing was, it wasnt Prof Stuckey doing that, it was the women in the class, many of whom were perfect sterotypes of man haters. Though I got a few dates from the other women secretly sorry for my plight, not that it really bothered me. It was a helpful addition to my ancient and medieval history studies and gave me a fresh view on looking at things

 

 

It sounds like it would be a good partner with ancient and medieval history studies, especially at that time.   And studying that it makes you appreciate too how difficult it must have been for any female royal to hold onto the top seat in most countries during certain times.    

CBSA allowed religious travellers to demand not to be served by women

Quote:

The officer said she and her colleagues — whose job involves screening passengers for entry into Canada after they arrive on international flights — were told before their shift not to switch work stations with other officers without first asking a supervisor.

"The reason given was that there were five individuals coming in who had requested only to be served by male officers," said the CBSA officer in an exclusive interview with CBC's Nil Koksal.

When CBSA officers on shift that night asked their managers why the group's request was being accommodated, they were told the men were not allowed to have contact with women for religious reasons.

"Everybody is upset that this request was even entertained by the CBSA," she said. "People are saying 'What is next? If white supremacists come through, do we move all non-white officers from the line?'"

"The nature of the request is offensive to me as a woman," she said. "You are a guest in my country. What do you mean you don't want to deal with me because I'm a woman? We are considered law enforcement officers. I can't imagine any police force entertaining something like that."

Interviewed, not searched. As far as I know if the customs process extends to a strip search you have the same right to request a same-gender search as you do at the security checkpoint. These men didn't want to even talk to a woman while displaying their passports. I don't think a woman would get a women-only lane at passport control unless religion were somehow involved.

We're not talking about that either (that's more of an airport security thing, not for arriving international passengers unless they're connecting). We're talking about passport control, where they look at your paperwork and visa and decide whether or not to admit you. Physical body searches at customs are, I believe (I've never been sent to that level of customs scrutiny, but if it applies to CATSA I'm not sure why it wouldn't apply 200 meters away in the same airport), same-gender. The agent in question spoke of being told not to switch her lane station. Searches happen in a back room, not the passport control area.

Echoing cco, some how discrimination against women is tolerated when it would not be tolerated against particular races or sexual orientations.

Should they also have the right to demand straight white customs officials or is it only women they should be allowed to exclude?

It is often said there is no hierarchy of rights but I beg to differ. Religious freedom ends where human rights begin.

Actually cco, the men have no choice in who strip searches them or is present. Women, however, do have such a choice

Ah, I see.

So, it's alright for private businesses to treat all members of a particular group as if they're responsible for the actions of other members of that group.

Good to know. Very progressive stance.

Keystone, you've been here since 2008? WTF?

"They're offering a service and a space for those who seek that sort thing. Some women would rather work out only among other women."

If we changed this to race, instead of gender, we could extrapolate on this accomodation of group dislike.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who would prefer to workout only among other white people. But that shoudn't be a problem as long as there are mixed race gyms available.

KeyStone wrote:

Outrage because one male student asked to be treated like a long distance student for a single assignment because of religions beliefs. Meanwhile, there's like 5000 gyms that say 'no men allowed'.

In case you haven't noticed, you're in the feminist forum. "Discuss issues from a pro-feminist point of view" isn't a tag line, it's a statement of what will be tolerated in this feminist/womanist-friendly space. It's a mandate.

This is not the place where women's need to feel safe from unwanted sexual attention in gyms is to be debated. You can either check your male privilege and entitlement at the door, or keep out altogether. Your choice.

KeyStone wrote:

Outrage because one male student asked to be treated like a long distance student for a single assignment because of religions beliefs. Meanwhile, there's like 5000 gyms that say 'no men allowed'.

The difference is that the women's gyms are private clubs, not a government agency or public business.  There are many private men's clubs in existence - let's start with the Masons, shall we?  They have a women's auxiliary, but women are not admitted as Masons.  There are plenty of others.  The rationale is probably different than it is for women's gyms, but the principle is the same - you can, actually, restrict membership by sex.

Now I'm wondering if the Sons of Norway accept those of ethnic heritage other than Scandinavian as members...