<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Protecting Women by Excluding Men</title> <atom:link href="http://www.ipatrix.com/2455/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/2455/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/</link> <description>Crossing Borders Crossing Cultures</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:20:00 -0500</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Owww</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/2455/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13393</link> <dc:creator>Owww</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:55:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13393</guid> <description>&lt;i&gt;I find it amusing that you equate sitting naked on a potty with running on a treadmill.&lt;/i&gt;
Whats wrong with being naked. Beaches in Europe are topless. And when did I say that you have to share the potty cabin. Don&#039;t put words into my mouth.
Just have a common restroom with the cabins inside. Are you implying that men are so lecherous in American society that they would mentally strip a woman in a common restroom?!! I find this separation of restrooms offensive and discriminatory.
And hey, you did not give me your take on discriminatory sauna rooms.
&lt;i&gt;BTW the term â€˜beekeeper outfitâ€™ was a gentle one.&lt;/i&gt;
Oh, so you have more derogatory terms for private use. I am not surprised.
&lt;i&gt;There are no excuses for using religious dogma to suppress women. I find the burqa offensive.&lt;/i&gt;
Why do you find it offensive? I find the objectification of women throgh bikinis offensive, do you? Do you just generally feel offended. I have a friend who voluntarily chose to wear the head scarf this year. I would like to explain to her that her dress is offensive. Kindly elaborate so that I can forward your detailed thoughts to her.
Oh and yes, I read your comment on Nikets blog. Boy, that was some rebuttal. So everyone should conform to your sartorial preferences.
Ah yes - We should blend in with Americans, In America my wife will wear shorts and guys in the gym may or may not lech at her I am comfortable with that. But We should not lose our culture, So, she will not wear a bikini top and expose her entire butt. She will definitely not take her top off like Europeans.
Why cant these Muslim women behave exactly the way my wife is behaving and wear shorts? I am not saying they should wear bikinis. So what if some random dude some place may check out her thighs? Is that such a big deal?? I hate this burkha. Now Harvard by actually creating womens hours is inexplicably trying to accomodate this separate non-Western culture!!! There must be something deeply morally reprehensible about this!! Let me find something against this!! Oh yes!!! This is discriminatory against men. Such partitioning of the sexes is a crime against humanity, never before seen in the annals of history except in cruel repressive regimes and Japanese local trains. Let the bloggers revolt against this slimy pandering to Islam!!!</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I find it amusing that you equate sitting naked on a potty with running on a treadmill.</i></p><p>Whats wrong with being naked. Beaches in Europe are topless. And when did I say that you have to share the potty cabin. Don&#8217;t put words into my mouth.<br
/> Just have a common restroom with the cabins inside. Are you implying that men are so lecherous in American society that they would mentally strip a woman in a common restroom?!! I find this separation of restrooms offensive and discriminatory.</p><p>And hey, you did not give me your take on discriminatory sauna rooms.</p><p><i>BTW the term â€˜beekeeper outfitâ€™ was a gentle one.</i></p><p>Oh, so you have more derogatory terms for private use. I am not surprised.</p><p><i>There are no excuses for using religious dogma to suppress women. I find the burqa offensive.</i></p><p>Why do you find it offensive? I find the objectification of women throgh bikinis offensive, do you? Do you just generally feel offended. I have a friend who voluntarily chose to wear the head scarf this year. I would like to explain to her that her dress is offensive. Kindly elaborate so that I can forward your detailed thoughts to her.</p><p>Oh and yes, I read your comment on Nikets blog. Boy, that was some rebuttal. So everyone should conform to your sartorial preferences.</p><p>Ah yes &#8211; We should blend in with Americans, In America my wife will wear shorts and guys in the gym may or may not lech at her I am comfortable with that. But We should not lose our culture, So, she will not wear a bikini top and expose her entire butt. She will definitely not take her top off like Europeans.</p><p>Why cant these Muslim women behave exactly the way my wife is behaving and wear shorts? I am not saying they should wear bikinis. So what if some random dude some place may check out her thighs? Is that such a big deal?? I hate this burkha. Now Harvard by actually creating womens hours is inexplicably trying to accomodate this separate non-Western culture!!! There must be something deeply morally reprehensible about this!! Let me find something against this!! Oh yes!!! This is discriminatory against men. Such partitioning of the sexes is a crime against humanity, never before seen in the annals of history except in cruel repressive regimes and Japanese local trains. Let the bloggers revolt against this slimy pandering to Islam!!!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Patrix</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/2455/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13319</link> <dc:creator>Patrix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:05:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13319</guid> <description>&lt;strong&gt;Owww&lt;/strong&gt;, read &lt;a href=&quot;http://kaisare.org/blog/?p=77#comment-2527&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my comment on Niket&#039;s blog&lt;/a&gt; for my rebuttal on &#039;family hours&#039;. I find it amusing that you equate sitting naked on a potty with running on a treadmill. BTW the term &#039;beekeeper outfit&#039; was a gentle one. There are no excuses for using religious dogma to suppress women. I find the burqa offensive.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Owww</strong>, read <a
href="http://kaisare.org/blog/?p=77#comment-2527" rel="nofollow">my comment on Niket&#8217;s blog</a> for my rebuttal on &#8216;family hours&#8217;. I find it amusing that you equate sitting naked on a potty with running on a treadmill. BTW the term &#8216;beekeeper outfit&#8217; was a gentle one. There are no excuses for using religious dogma to suppress women. I find the burqa offensive.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Owww</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/2455/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13308</link> <dc:creator>Owww</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:46:02 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13308</guid> <description>&lt;i&gt;Mind you, Iâ€™m all for respecting and providing for special needs of minorities but not of policies that are based on exclusion rather than inclusion.&lt;/i&gt;
There are separate hours for men and women in swimming pools and gyms in India as well. In the US, there are separate womens rooms and mens bathrooms as well. Nobody argues that womens restrooms are discriminatory against men because they are based on the principle of exclusion. The reason women want separate hours is for cultural reasons that any Indian shold be able to identify with. They are just as exclusionary as womens restrooms or similar systems in India. Harvard having 6 womens only hours in 110 hours in one of its many gyms is a positive step in accomodating cultures that aren&#039;t western.
&lt;i&gt;This Harvard policy does not serve the inclusionary purposes because it defers to the regressive gender separation policies propagated by certain cultures&lt;/i&gt;
Do you consider separate sauna rooms for men and women a sign of regressive gender separation policy?
&lt;i&gt;Regardless of what I feel about dressing women in beekeeper outfits&lt;/i&gt;
Beekeeper outfit - Thats a charming word. Go easy on the bigotry, after all its your own blog.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Mind you, Iâ€™m all for respecting and providing for special needs of minorities but not of policies that are based on exclusion rather than inclusion.</i></p><p>There are separate hours for men and women in swimming pools and gyms in India as well. In the US, there are separate womens rooms and mens bathrooms as well. Nobody argues that womens restrooms are discriminatory against men because they are based on the principle of exclusion. The reason women want separate hours is for cultural reasons that any Indian shold be able to identify with. They are just as exclusionary as womens restrooms or similar systems in India. Harvard having 6 womens only hours in 110 hours in one of its many gyms is a positive step in accomodating cultures that aren&#8217;t western.</p><p><i>This Harvard policy does not serve the inclusionary purposes because it defers to the regressive gender separation policies propagated by certain cultures</i></p><p>Do you consider separate sauna rooms for men and women a sign of regressive gender separation policy?</p><p><i>Regardless of what I feel about dressing women in beekeeper outfits</i></p><p>Beekeeper outfit &#8211; Thats a charming word. Go easy on the bigotry, after all its your own blog.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: usofa</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/2455/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13291</link> <dc:creator>usofa</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:22:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13291</guid> <description>this usa http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2846532.cms
just in case you did&#039;nt no</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this usa <a
href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2846532.cms" rel="nofollow">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2846532.cms</a></p><p>just in case you did&#8217;nt no</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Una verdad simulada &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Women-only hours</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/2455/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13278</link> <dc:creator>Una verdad simulada &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Women-only hours</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:12:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/protecting-women-by-excluding-men/#comment-13278</guid> <description>[...] Patrix is unimpressed: Mind you, Iâ€™m all for respecting and providing for special needs of minorities but not of policies that are based on exclusion rather than inclusion. Assimilation of minorities into the mainstream are based in inclusionary policies (affirmative action, school integration) [&#8230;] [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Patrix is unimpressed: Mind you, Iâ€™m all for respecting and providing for special needs of minorities but not of policies that are based on exclusion rather than inclusion. Assimilation of minorities into the mainstream are based in inclusionary policies (affirmative action, school integration) [&#8230;] [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
