Everybody Into the Pool?
June 3, 2016 7:27 AM Subscribe
On Wednesday, The New York City Parks Department decided to continue allowing women-only swimming hours at a public indoor pool in Williamsburg, a heavily Hasidic neighborhood in Brooklyn. An anonymous complaint had previously led the city’s Commission on Human Rights to notify the parks department that the policy violated the law, but supporters of the women's only hours state that disbanding 'Women's Swim' "would be akin to banning Hasidic women from the pool altogether."
Thing is, it's not that tough a call; this benefits every woman, and not just those who are Hasidic. I'm sure that for many, many women it would be really nice to be able to go swimming (where, let's face it, you're basically naked) without the male gaze around.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [72 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [72 favorites]
feckless fecal fear mongering: Good point!
posted by SansPoint at 7:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 7:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am so very tired of the claims being staked in the common, secular space by those claiming religious exemption. From Christians and their inalienable right to refuse public services to same-sex couples to Jewish men who "can't" sit next to women on a plane to Muslim children who won't shake hands with their female teacher.
And, of course, in the U.S. at least, this is now being couched (disingenuously, as in the article) as, hey, we're all about being progressive and accepting of everyone nowadays (read: nondiscrimination against LGBT folk), so why shouldn't we get the same treatment? Which, in the instant case, conveniently leaves unaddressed the issue of taxpayer subsidization of discriminatory behavior.
posted by the sobsister at 7:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [57 favorites]
And, of course, in the U.S. at least, this is now being couched (disingenuously, as in the article) as, hey, we're all about being progressive and accepting of everyone nowadays (read: nondiscrimination against LGBT folk), so why shouldn't we get the same treatment? Which, in the instant case, conveniently leaves unaddressed the issue of taxpayer subsidization of discriminatory behavior.
posted by the sobsister at 7:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [57 favorites]
I think it is unfortunate that there are religions and cultures in the world that socialize women into accepting these oppressive restrictions, but as long as there are religions and cultures in the world that socialize women into accepting these oppressive restrictions, we don't make the world a better place by making things harder on the women.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [107 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 7:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [107 favorites]
The women-only pool time is meant to accommodate Williamsburg's large Hasidic Jewish community, whose interpretation of religious law prohibits observants from bathing in front of the opposite sex. (From the first link).
So apparently Hasidic men have no opportunity to use the pool?
(I'm all for having women-only times, and men-only times, and especially adult-only times).
posted by yesster at 7:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
So apparently Hasidic men have no opportunity to use the pool?
(I'm all for having women-only times, and men-only times, and especially adult-only times).
posted by yesster at 7:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'll totally for it. I used to use that pool and had friends who took advantage of the woman's day to swim in peace. The women who take most advantage of this are pretty actively, uh, not empowered and this (as I understood) was a real net positive, taking it away would be spiteful at best.
posted by From Bklyn at 7:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 7:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
There are likely legal loopholes like renting the pool to a local synagogue for part of the day, making it a private event, so probably no big deal if they want to keep the hours.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 7:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
From Christians and their inalienable right to refuse public services to same-sex couples to Jewish men who can't sit next to women on a plane to Muslim children who won't shake hands with their female teacher.
In the first case, refusal of public services causes harm.
In the second case, refusal to sit next to a woman forces other people to accommodate their religious belief.
In the third case, that's just stupid.
In this case, who is actually harmed?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
In the first case, refusal of public services causes harm.
In the second case, refusal to sit next to a woman forces other people to accommodate their religious belief.
In the third case, that's just stupid.
In this case, who is actually harmed?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Weird that anyone complained although I get the impression that there are tensions in some of these new York Hassidic neighbourhoods with the goyim.
We had men's and women's only swim times at my Canadian university swimming pool back in the 90s and I only noticed because I had to schedule guard shifts. For us it was requested by the Muslim students association. So this is only slightly newer as a phenomenon than swimming itself.
posted by GuyZero at 7:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
We had men's and women's only swim times at my Canadian university swimming pool back in the 90s and I only noticed because I had to schedule guard shifts. For us it was requested by the Muslim students association. So this is only slightly newer as a phenomenon than swimming itself.
posted by GuyZero at 7:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it is unfortunate that there are religions and cultures in the world that socialize women into accepting these oppressive restrictions
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I was raised in mainstream US coed culture, and the idea of being able to go swimming without dealing with our culture's virulent misogyny sounds more like liberation than repression.
"Equality" isn't really very progressive or even very equal when every public space we have is turned into yet another location where men police, mock, and consume women's bodies. I know that this is being done in the name of an extremely conservative religion, but it is worth remembering that a lot of women outside of that faith would welcome the absence of men for completely different reasons.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [83 favorites]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I was raised in mainstream US coed culture, and the idea of being able to go swimming without dealing with our culture's virulent misogyny sounds more like liberation than repression.
"Equality" isn't really very progressive or even very equal when every public space we have is turned into yet another location where men police, mock, and consume women's bodies. I know that this is being done in the name of an extremely conservative religion, but it is worth remembering that a lot of women outside of that faith would welcome the absence of men for completely different reasons.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [83 favorites]
I get the impression that there are tensions in some of these new York Hassidic neighbourhoods with the goyim
Yeah, you could say that.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, you could say that.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Muslim children who won't shake hands with their female teacher.
I'm sorry, I do not understand why anyone, ever, should be shamed or disapproved of for not wanting physical contact of whatever kind with someone else, for whatever reason.
If someone doesn't want to shake someone else's hand, I think that is clearly the right and prerogative of the non-hand-shaker over the hand-shaker.
For an equivalent, in some cultures cheek kissing is a totally normal neutral greeting and that does not mean I need to be okay with kissing/being kissed as a greeting if it makes me uncomfortable for any reason whatsoever.
posted by Cozybee at 7:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
I'm sorry, I do not understand why anyone, ever, should be shamed or disapproved of for not wanting physical contact of whatever kind with someone else, for whatever reason.
If someone doesn't want to shake someone else's hand, I think that is clearly the right and prerogative of the non-hand-shaker over the hand-shaker.
For an equivalent, in some cultures cheek kissing is a totally normal neutral greeting and that does not mean I need to be okay with kissing/being kissed as a greeting if it makes me uncomfortable for any reason whatsoever.
posted by Cozybee at 7:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
In this case, who is actually harmed?
In addition to any non-female for whom this would've been the most convenient time to use the pool? The principle of not using public, secular space to accommodate a specific doctrinal position.
If the pool had, of its own volition, sponsored a "ladies-only afternoon" or something similar, that's fine. That is exclusive but inclusive at the same time and widely understood and accepted in American culture. To have one religious group exclude other users solely on the basis of the quirks of their belief—and to say that other, non-Jewish women might also benefit is rationalization, not justification)—is wrong for a publicly funded space and resource.
posted by the sobsister at 8:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [28 favorites]
In addition to any non-female for whom this would've been the most convenient time to use the pool? The principle of not using public, secular space to accommodate a specific doctrinal position.
If the pool had, of its own volition, sponsored a "ladies-only afternoon" or something similar, that's fine. That is exclusive but inclusive at the same time and widely understood and accepted in American culture. To have one religious group exclude other users solely on the basis of the quirks of their belief—and to say that other, non-Jewish women might also benefit is rationalization, not justification)—is wrong for a publicly funded space and resource.
posted by the sobsister at 8:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [28 favorites]
The Female Swim time at The Regent Park Aquatic Centre here in Toronto is one of the most popular times (CBC Radio audio).
Why Regent Park’s aquatic facility is a hit with women (1 popup ad).
posted by chococat at 8:01 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Why Regent Park’s aquatic facility is a hit with women (1 popup ad).
posted by chococat at 8:01 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
In this case, who is actually harmed?
I'm guessing this is going to become one more place where trans women are excluded on the basis of not being "real" women.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 8:02 AM on June 3, 2016 [35 favorites]
I'm guessing this is going to become one more place where trans women are excluded on the basis of not being "real" women.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 8:02 AM on June 3, 2016 [35 favorites]
A personal preference is different from a structural religious rule prohibiting inter-gender contact.
Anyway, 9:15 am to 11 am on weekdays is nearly dead time for the average public pool. Even Hassidic men are almost all at work. Finding harm here is going to be a tough job.
posted by GuyZero at 8:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Anyway, 9:15 am to 11 am on weekdays is nearly dead time for the average public pool. Even Hassidic men are almost all at work. Finding harm here is going to be a tough job.
posted by GuyZero at 8:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
the sobsister: However you slice it, someone is going to be denied the use of the pool. This sucks, but it's inevitable. I think having specific women's only times is the best compromise between a group with deep seated religious beliefs about gender mixing—beliefs I completely disagree with—and everyone else. That it creates a safe space for non-Hasidic women to swim without worrying about skeevy men is a bonus.
posted by SansPoint at 8:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 8:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
As legal reasoning, the argument that disbanding 'Women's Swim' "would be akin to banning Hasidic women from the pool altogether" should be soundly rejected.
We give special legal status to private events to allow for this sort of thing, so just let the synagogues rent the pool for appropriate hours, and run the swim as a private event. It might improve the pool's financial situation too, depending upon the rent charged.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
We give special legal status to private events to allow for this sort of thing, so just let the synagogues rent the pool for appropriate hours, and run the swim as a private event. It might improve the pool's financial situation too, depending upon the rent charged.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm guessing this is going to become one more place where trans women are excluded on the basis of not being "real" women.
NYC has some fairly strong law on gender identity.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
NYC has some fairly strong law on gender identity.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
I am so very tired of the claims being staked in the common, secular space by those claiming religious exemption. From Christians and their inalienable right to refuse public services to same-sex couples to Jewish men who "can't" sit next to women on a plane to Muslim children who won't shake hands with their female teacher.
This x1000 - it's the thin edge of a wedge, and if you want to see the kind of extremes it can be taken to, and that many would *like* (and feel entitled) to take it to, look to the struggle between ultra-Orthodox Jews and everyone else in Israel.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:05 AM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
This x1000 - it's the thin edge of a wedge, and if you want to see the kind of extremes it can be taken to, and that many would *like* (and feel entitled) to take it to, look to the struggle between ultra-Orthodox Jews and everyone else in Israel.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:05 AM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
In this case, who is actually harmed?
The people who receive reduced service availability from a public service on the basis of their gender?
If you want a pool to accommodate your religious restrictions build your own pool. You even get tax exempt dollars to do it.
If you want a private club...build you own.
A public pool entails it being public.
posted by srboisvert at 8:07 AM on June 3, 2016 [48 favorites]
The people who receive reduced service availability from a public service on the basis of their gender?
If you want a pool to accommodate your religious restrictions build your own pool. You even get tax exempt dollars to do it.
If you want a private club...build you own.
A public pool entails it being public.
posted by srboisvert at 8:07 AM on June 3, 2016 [48 favorites]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I was raised in mainstream US coed culture, and the idea of being able to go swimming without dealing with our culture's virulent misogyny sounds more like liberation than repression.
I'm totally willing to add mainstream western culture to my mental list of unfortunate cultures that involve oppressing women.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [27 favorites]
I'm totally willing to add mainstream western culture to my mental list of unfortunate cultures that involve oppressing women.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [27 favorites]
If someone doesn't want to shake someone else's hand, I think that is clearly the right and prerogative of the non-hand-shaker over the hand-shaker.
Yes, any individual can certainly opt out of physical contact.
posted by the sobsister at 8:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, any individual can certainly opt out of physical contact.
posted by the sobsister at 8:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
An important part of American cultural life is, and should be, all about finding a way for individuals with disparate backgrounds to live together peacefully. That is why we make reasonable accommodations for many peoples' beliefs, religious or otherwise. Obviously, one can argue over what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, but when there is no obvious harm, other than to an intangible sense of secularism, the outcome should be clear. I find the sexist and patriarchal beliefs inherent in Hasidic theology to be odious as a personal matter, but I also find the need to tolerate and accommodate beliefs that are different from mine to be more important and for the greater good.
posted by Falconetti at 8:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Falconetti at 8:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
I don't know how I feel about this.
The Times is 100% right about Hikind's hypocrisy and that the segregation benefits one group over others. The policy also perpetuates segregation of women in a community that in many ways treats them like second class citizens and drastically limits their access to secular education.
But then, this is a rule that helps those same women, by giving them access to something they wouldn't take advantage of otherwise.
But this isn't the first time this has been attempted and it's usually not done to accommodate Jews. A few public swimming pools have set up scheduled segregation times for women in the US and Canada in last few years -- often for Muslim women. Columbia, Maryland instituted a similar setup in their 23 public pools to accommodate Muslims in 2011, and it sparked a huge uproar and outcry from the usual suspects about "sharia law" and the government imposing "muslim dress codes" on non-Muslims from the usual anti-Muslim suspects. (Not linking -- google will turn up garbage blog posts by right wing conservatives.) In 2012, a YMCA in City Heights in San Diego set up women-only times for (Muslim) East African women. Washington State's Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District set up separate swim times at a single pool in 2013 and that also kicked off a debate. And as the Times recently reported (and noted by chococat above,) a pool in a housing project in Regent Park Toronto also has women-only times.
Most of those articles cite benefits to women that go beyond religious considerations. I think that's worth considering at least.
posted by zarq at 8:10 AM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
The Times is 100% right about Hikind's hypocrisy and that the segregation benefits one group over others. The policy also perpetuates segregation of women in a community that in many ways treats them like second class citizens and drastically limits their access to secular education.
But then, this is a rule that helps those same women, by giving them access to something they wouldn't take advantage of otherwise.
But this isn't the first time this has been attempted and it's usually not done to accommodate Jews. A few public swimming pools have set up scheduled segregation times for women in the US and Canada in last few years -- often for Muslim women. Columbia, Maryland instituted a similar setup in their 23 public pools to accommodate Muslims in 2011, and it sparked a huge uproar and outcry from the usual suspects about "sharia law" and the government imposing "muslim dress codes" on non-Muslims from the usual anti-Muslim suspects. (Not linking -- google will turn up garbage blog posts by right wing conservatives.) In 2012, a YMCA in City Heights in San Diego set up women-only times for (Muslim) East African women. Washington State's Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District set up separate swim times at a single pool in 2013 and that also kicked off a debate. And as the Times recently reported (and noted by chococat above,) a pool in a housing project in Regent Park Toronto also has women-only times.
Most of those articles cite benefits to women that go beyond religious considerations. I think that's worth considering at least.
posted by zarq at 8:10 AM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
This would be a good hill to die on and to follow the law. This is essentially cultural extortion: allow us our bigotry or the women will suffer. It misplaces the source of that suffering in equitable, common law.
posted by One Hand Slowclapping at 8:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by One Hand Slowclapping at 8:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [36 favorites]
An important part of American cultural life is, and should be, all about finding a way for individuals with disparate backgrounds to live together peacefully. That is why we make reasonable accommodations for many peoples' beliefs, religious or otherwise. Obviously, one can argue over what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, but when there is no obvious harm, other than to an intangible sense of secularism, the outcome should be clear. I find the sexist and patriarchal beliefs inherent in Hasidic theology to be odious as a personal matter, but I also find the needs to tolerate and accommodate beliefs that are different from mine to be more important and for the greater good.
Will you feel the same when, for instance, The Nation of Islam insists on receiving equal time for Black-only swimming, or a White Supremicist church demands an Whites-only block of time? Those would be religious accommodations whose legitimacy equals the one being discussed here.
posted by Chrischris at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
Will you feel the same when, for instance, The Nation of Islam insists on receiving equal time for Black-only swimming, or a White Supremicist church demands an Whites-only block of time? Those would be religious accommodations whose legitimacy equals the one being discussed here.
posted by Chrischris at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
If the pool had, of its own volition, sponsored a "ladies-only afternoon" or something similar, that's fine.
Saying that the action itself is fine should be the end of the argument. Everything else is thought policing of a kind that is either impossible or oppressive. A society where the heavily secular neighborhood gets a women's day at the pool because it's not that big a deal to them, but the Hasidic neighborhood can't have one because it is integral to their faith doesn't really sound like a cheerful, tolerant place. "You could easily have this, except the reason you want it is religious" is not a great way to build a tolerant, respectful society. I'm all for secular government, when that means government agencies don't act to enforce religious beliefs. When it means the populace can't make requests based on religious beliefs, that's something else entirely.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [54 favorites]
Saying that the action itself is fine should be the end of the argument. Everything else is thought policing of a kind that is either impossible or oppressive. A society where the heavily secular neighborhood gets a women's day at the pool because it's not that big a deal to them, but the Hasidic neighborhood can't have one because it is integral to their faith doesn't really sound like a cheerful, tolerant place. "You could easily have this, except the reason you want it is religious" is not a great way to build a tolerant, respectful society. I'm all for secular government, when that means government agencies don't act to enforce religious beliefs. When it means the populace can't make requests based on religious beliefs, that's something else entirely.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [54 favorites]
"I am so very tired of the claims being staked in the common, secular space by those claiming religious exemption. From Christians and their inalienable right to refuse public services to same-sex couples to Jewish men who "can't" sit next to women on a plane to Muslim children who won't shake hands with their female teacher."So should all children who don't feel comfortable shaking their teachers hand be forced to or just the Muslim ones to satisfy your contempt for people with different religious beliefs than yours? Should all people who feel uncomfortable sitting next to someone for their own reasons be forced to stay put even if there is a reasonable alternative, or just the Jewish ones? Access to public services clearly needs to be an area of enforced neutrality, where signing up to provide a service means providing that service to everyone whether they like it or not, but no ones handshaking or seat preferences are anyone's business but theirs even if you hate their creed.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
9:15 am to 11 am on weekdays is nearly dead time for the average public pool.
Note that the article says that it's also on Sunday afternoon, 2:45-4:45. This is peak family time at my local pool. I would be annoyed if I could not access the pool at that time, take a kid, etc.
posted by carter at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Note that the article says that it's also on Sunday afternoon, 2:45-4:45. This is peak family time at my local pool. I would be annoyed if I could not access the pool at that time, take a kid, etc.
posted by carter at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Obviously, one can argue over what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, but when there is no obvious harm, other than to an intangible sense of secularism, the outcome should be clear.
Except this response is a perfect example of why there has to be a very bright line drawn with regard to religious exemptions in publicly funded space. "When there is no obvious harm"? As determined by whom? Those benefiting from the exemption? Those being discriminated against? Purportedly disinterested observers? That "an intangible sense of secularism" is characterized in that subtly pejorative way pointedly underlines the risk in letting the camel's nose under the tent. "Sure, who's it hurting except some quote-unquote 'concept'?"
posted by the sobsister at 8:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Except this response is a perfect example of why there has to be a very bright line drawn with regard to religious exemptions in publicly funded space. "When there is no obvious harm"? As determined by whom? Those benefiting from the exemption? Those being discriminated against? Purportedly disinterested observers? That "an intangible sense of secularism" is characterized in that subtly pejorative way pointedly underlines the risk in letting the camel's nose under the tent. "Sure, who's it hurting except some quote-unquote 'concept'?"
posted by the sobsister at 8:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
So... it's better for these women to not go swimming at all?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:19 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:19 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
... where signing up to provide a service means providing that service to everyone whether they like it or not, but no ones handshaking or seat preferences are anyone's business but theirs even if you hate their creed.
They are if they try to use the law to impose them on the rest of the community, which is what is happening here.
So... it's better for these women to not go swimming at all?
As others have noted, if some Hasids want to segregate the sexes for swimming, they can start a private pool.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:21 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
They are if they try to use the law to impose them on the rest of the community, which is what is happening here.
So... it's better for these women to not go swimming at all?
As others have noted, if some Hasids want to segregate the sexes for swimming, they can start a private pool.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:21 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
One Hand Slowclapping: This is essentially cultural extortion: allow us our bigotry or the women will suffer.
And yet, if you read the articles in this post and the ones I linked to in my last comment, women explicitly praise the policy here and elsewhere. It seems clear from their quotes that they prefer the accommodation.
posted by zarq at 8:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
And yet, if you read the articles in this post and the ones I linked to in my last comment, women explicitly praise the policy here and elsewhere. It seems clear from their quotes that they prefer the accommodation.
posted by zarq at 8:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
the sobsister: I get it. I really do. Problem is, someone who is supposed to be served by this pool is going to be shut out. Either you shut out men for six hours, or you shut out Hasidic Women all the time. These are the options. In an ideal world, everyone would get to swim, whenever they want, in peace. This is not an ideal world.
posted by SansPoint at 8:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 8:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Most Toronto public pools have had women's-only swim times for as long as I can remember. And yet, democracy endures.
posted by mightygodking at 8:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by mightygodking at 8:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [29 favorites]
Tell you what, this fat little old lady would ADORE some women-only swim times. How delightful would that be! Sure, women who are modest for reasons of religion would benefit. But so would women who don't want to subject their bodies to the male gaze for reasons of hells no, I just don't want to, and I don't have to justify myself to anybody so fuck you.
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 8:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [43 favorites]
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 8:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [43 favorites]
If it is true that Hasidic persons can not bathe in front of the opposite sex - does this apply to men as well? If a woman (not necessarily Hasidic) were to try to use the pool during mixed bathing hours, do the Hasidic men have to leave? Or will they ignore her? Or take some action designed to push her out of the pool area?
posted by Death and Gravity at 8:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Death and Gravity at 8:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Will you feel the same when, for instance, The Nation of Islam insists on receiving equal time for Black-only swimming, or a White Supremicist church demands an Whites-only block of time? Those would be religious accommodations whose legitimacy equals the one being discussed here.
I'm really surprised that a lazy slippery-slope argument would get trotted out about what seems like a pretty non-controversial issue. The only argument to be had is how many hours a week get devoted to gender-segregated swim hours.
This is not new. I was personally scheduling lifeguards for men and women-only swim times at a pool in 1992. I know some people think that Muslim people hadn't been invented in Canada back then, but it's true.
Hasidic women are members of the public the same as anyone and if they require accommodation to use the pool then it's perfectly reasonable to make accommodation for them. Sunday afternoon is indeed pretty prime time but if the pool is full at that time because that's who the local community is I don't see an issue.
Never having seen this pool I suppose there's a small chance these times go unused and that the time could be allocated more usefully but the issue of pool scheduling is fundamentally different from the basic right to access the facility.
Sheesh, do you people complain about ramps and handrails because you're not mobility impaired?
posted by GuyZero at 8:28 AM on June 3, 2016 [39 favorites]
I'm really surprised that a lazy slippery-slope argument would get trotted out about what seems like a pretty non-controversial issue. The only argument to be had is how many hours a week get devoted to gender-segregated swim hours.
This is not new. I was personally scheduling lifeguards for men and women-only swim times at a pool in 1992. I know some people think that Muslim people hadn't been invented in Canada back then, but it's true.
Hasidic women are members of the public the same as anyone and if they require accommodation to use the pool then it's perfectly reasonable to make accommodation for them. Sunday afternoon is indeed pretty prime time but if the pool is full at that time because that's who the local community is I don't see an issue.
Never having seen this pool I suppose there's a small chance these times go unused and that the time could be allocated more usefully but the issue of pool scheduling is fundamentally different from the basic right to access the facility.
Sheesh, do you people complain about ramps and handrails because you're not mobility impaired?
posted by GuyZero at 8:28 AM on June 3, 2016 [39 favorites]
So should all children who don't feel comfortable shaking their teachers hand be forced to or just the Muslim ones to satisfy your contempt for people with different religious beliefs than yours? Should all people who feel uncomfortable sitting next to someone for their own reasons be forced to stay put even if there is a reasonable alternative, or just the Jewish ones? Access to public services clearly needs to be an area of enforced neutrality, where signing up to provide a service means providing that service to everyone whether they like it or not, but no ones handshaking or seat preferences are anyone's business but theirs even if you hate their creed.
"Contempt"? "Hate"? Whoa there, hoss, you seem to have taken a turn onto Hyperbole Highway.
My point—again—is that religious reasons for discriminatory behavior are unjustifiable. If an individual child is uncomfortable shaking hands, then that's a particular accommodation between the teacher, it's parent(s) and the child. And i think you're overreaching in your examples: If someone doesn't feel comfortable sitting next to someone else "for their own reasons," then that's their shit to deal with, not the airline's and certainly not the other passenger's.
posted by the sobsister at 8:28 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Contempt"? "Hate"? Whoa there, hoss, you seem to have taken a turn onto Hyperbole Highway.
My point—again—is that religious reasons for discriminatory behavior are unjustifiable. If an individual child is uncomfortable shaking hands, then that's a particular accommodation between the teacher, it's parent(s) and the child. And i think you're overreaching in your examples: If someone doesn't feel comfortable sitting next to someone else "for their own reasons," then that's their shit to deal with, not the airline's and certainly not the other passenger's.
posted by the sobsister at 8:28 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Most Toronto public pools have had women's-only swim times for as long as I can remember.
Yeah, I was going to say -- I'm surprised by the focus on Regent Park. A lot of Toronto pools have female-only hours. Surprisingly, not most of them -- only maybe 10% of pools have female-only hours, just based on scanning through the various regional fun guides for "Leisure-Female" -- but still, a significant number and most of the larger, nicer aquatic centers do.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I was going to say -- I'm surprised by the focus on Regent Park. A lot of Toronto pools have female-only hours. Surprisingly, not most of them -- only maybe 10% of pools have female-only hours, just based on scanning through the various regional fun guides for "Leisure-Female" -- but still, a significant number and most of the larger, nicer aquatic centers do.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the pool should be women only for 24 hours a day.
until those dudes get the point.
posted by wester at 8:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Sheesh, do you people complain about ramps and handrails because you're not mobility impaired?
How is that even vaguely analogous? You mean if the ramps and handrails prevented non-mobility-impaired people from entering a building? Umm...I guess?
posted by the sobsister at 8:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
How is that even vaguely analogous? You mean if the ramps and handrails prevented non-mobility-impaired people from entering a building? Umm...I guess?
posted by the sobsister at 8:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Death and Gravity: If it is true that Hasidic persons can not bathe in front of the opposite sex - does this apply to men as well? If a woman (not necessarily Hasidic) were to try to use the pool during mixed bathing hours, do the Hasidic men have to leave?
It may depend on the sect, but my understanding is yes. The ultra-Orthodox are not supposed to swim in mixed or coed pools. It has to do with tzniut (modesty laws).
Or take some action designed to push her out of the pool area?
They aren't supposed to. But that hasn't stopped the community from being assholes to non-members before in other circumstances.
posted by zarq at 8:35 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It may depend on the sect, but my understanding is yes. The ultra-Orthodox are not supposed to swim in mixed or coed pools. It has to do with tzniut (modesty laws).
Or take some action designed to push her out of the pool area?
They aren't supposed to. But that hasn't stopped the community from being assholes to non-members before in other circumstances.
posted by zarq at 8:35 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just to point out that the example of a Muslim not wanting to shake the hand of "someone" really refers to the recent article in which a Muslim child did not want to shake hands with his Swedish teacher. Seems it is customary in Sweden to shake hands each day with one's teacher, and the state feels its convention is important and ought not be violated.
posted by Postroad at 8:36 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Postroad at 8:36 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
How is that even vaguely analogous?
Pools are required to install access devices at significant cost regardless of how many actual or potential users there are for them. In the last decade or two pools have had to retrofit things like entry chairs, again, costing real money, even though these chairs go unused.
I'm a member of a private community pool in California that runs on a fairly small budget that has to spend thousands of dollars a year to maintain access to the pool for members that don't exist. Because of the ADA. oh, woe is me, under the thumb of big disability.
posted by GuyZero at 8:36 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Pools are required to install access devices at significant cost regardless of how many actual or potential users there are for them. In the last decade or two pools have had to retrofit things like entry chairs, again, costing real money, even though these chairs go unused.
I'm a member of a private community pool in California that runs on a fairly small budget that has to spend thousands of dollars a year to maintain access to the pool for members that don't exist. Because of the ADA. oh, woe is me, under the thumb of big disability.
posted by GuyZero at 8:36 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
the sobsister: People aren't just going to drop their religious beliefs and mores, though. Again, I'm an atheist, but I've come to terms with the fact that religion and religious people are not going to go away.
In this, specific case, there are only two options.
Option 1: Keep the pool 100% open and mixed gender all of the time, completely locking out the Hasidic women who make up a significant proportion of the neighborhood
Option 2: Have specific, women-only hours, locking out all of the men in the community for those hours.
I don't like that it's a religious justification. But all the bluster and energy about equality and the law isn't going to make Hasidim change their rules on mixing of genders. It's not going to happen. Women only hours is a compromise, it sucks, but it's better for the community that lives in the neighborhood than locking out all Hasidic women from being able to swim.
posted by SansPoint at 8:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
In this, specific case, there are only two options.
Option 1: Keep the pool 100% open and mixed gender all of the time, completely locking out the Hasidic women who make up a significant proportion of the neighborhood
Option 2: Have specific, women-only hours, locking out all of the men in the community for those hours.
I don't like that it's a religious justification. But all the bluster and energy about equality and the law isn't going to make Hasidim change their rules on mixing of genders. It's not going to happen. Women only hours is a compromise, it sucks, but it's better for the community that lives in the neighborhood than locking out all Hasidic women from being able to swim.
posted by SansPoint at 8:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
If you are interested in undermining these communities that are repressive to women, one of the most important and effective ways to do that is to provide women-only gathering spaces outside the control of the men of the community where women can network and be amongst each other without men policing their thoughts and speech. And even better is women-only spaces that belong to the general community where women in oppressive communities will have the opportunity to interact with women in the general community, and to build the sorts of connections that allow them to safely escape repressive communities.
Women-only gyms, pools, hairdresser hours, nail salons, etc., are where an awful lot of women who end up fleeing closed religious communities (or domestic violence situations) meet the women and get access to the social services that help them escape. There's a reason DV and cult-escape groups do a lot of outreach through commercial and community locations with women-only hours.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [179 favorites]
Women-only gyms, pools, hairdresser hours, nail salons, etc., are where an awful lot of women who end up fleeing closed religious communities (or domestic violence situations) meet the women and get access to the social services that help them escape. There's a reason DV and cult-escape groups do a lot of outreach through commercial and community locations with women-only hours.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [179 favorites]
convention or not, for religious reasons or not, i totally support everyone, including children, having body autonomy and getting to decide who they touch and who touches them. i don't care if it's just a hand shake or whatever.
posted by nadawi at 8:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
If you are interested in undermining these communities that are repressive to women, one of the most important and effective ways to do that is to provide women-only gathering spaces outside the control of the men of the community where women can network and be amongst each other without men policing their thoughts and speech.
Great point, Eyebrows McGee.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Great point, Eyebrows McGee.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
SansPoint,
I hear what you're saying, but that view, in my opinion, tries to make the proverbial lemonade out of lemons: yes, this sect sucks towards women, but if we bend our principle of religious nondiscrimination in the public, secular arena, they can get some pool time in. That this has a "warm puppy" involved, i.e., oppressed Hasidic women get to enjoy the pool, muddies the water, if you will. If we're talking about Kim Davis not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples—same idea: discriminatory nonprovision of public services on religious grounds—suddenly the point comes clearer.
posted by the sobsister at 8:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
I hear what you're saying, but that view, in my opinion, tries to make the proverbial lemonade out of lemons: yes, this sect sucks towards women, but if we bend our principle of religious nondiscrimination in the public, secular arena, they can get some pool time in. That this has a "warm puppy" involved, i.e., oppressed Hasidic women get to enjoy the pool, muddies the water, if you will. If we're talking about Kim Davis not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples—same idea: discriminatory nonprovision of public services on religious grounds—suddenly the point comes clearer.
posted by the sobsister at 8:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
I support bodily autonomy happily and completely, in the same way as I support freedom of speech.
I also find it repugnant that some would choose to shake hands some people and not others along gender lines, and I'll call that sexist, in the same way that I'd call out sexist speech.
You can support the idea of allowing them to not shake hands while also thinking they're doing it for sexist reasons.
posted by explosion at 8:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
I also find it repugnant that some would choose to shake hands some people and not others along gender lines, and I'll call that sexist, in the same way that I'd call out sexist speech.
You can support the idea of allowing them to not shake hands while also thinking they're doing it for sexist reasons.
posted by explosion at 8:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Some women feel uncomfortable swimming or being in a similar state of relative undress around men. So apparently we have to determine whether that discomfort is based in religious belief before we can accommodate it? Can we have a women's session at the pool if we quiz everyone attending to make sure they aren't doing it because they're Jewish or Muslim or ultra-conservative-Christian but rather because they're Principally and Conceptually Correct WASP feminists? And isn't it immediately obvious how legislating this shit based on intent on this way is horrifically discriminatory?
If it's fine when it's for the sake of women wanting freedom from men for any other reason, it's fine in this case too, vexing as you might find the culture behind it.
posted by Dysk at 8:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
If it's fine when it's for the sake of women wanting freedom from men for any other reason, it's fine in this case too, vexing as you might find the culture behind it.
posted by Dysk at 8:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
Whoa there, hoss, you seem to have taken a turn onto Hyperbole Highway.
Where we're going, we don't need roads.
posted by beerperson at 8:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Where we're going, we don't need roads.
posted by beerperson at 8:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
If you could please stop comparing Kim Davis' bigotry to this, that would be great.
The choices are:
1: No women-only hours, meaning Hasidic (and some Muslim, and any woman who'd like to go swimming there without men staring/judging/etc) women cannot go swimming.
2: Women-only hours.
If the pool itself announced that there were women-only hours, and didn't cite requests from the Hasidic community as the reason, would you be okay with it? Effects matter, not causes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
The choices are:
1: No women-only hours, meaning Hasidic (and some Muslim, and any woman who'd like to go swimming there without men staring/judging/etc) women cannot go swimming.
2: Women-only hours.
If the pool itself announced that there were women-only hours, and didn't cite requests from the Hasidic community as the reason, would you be okay with it? Effects matter, not causes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
If part of the community who uses a local pool wants women only hours, or men only hours, or adult only, or family friendly hours, as long as those are balanced out with general use, I think that's a reasonable way of ensuring everyone gets to use the pool. (I would expect that trans women can use the pool during women-only hours.)
Saying women-only hours -- something I've seen in community pools my entire life -- is just like the KKK asking for white-only hours is not even on the same page.
posted by jeather at 8:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
Saying women-only hours -- something I've seen in community pools my entire life -- is just like the KKK asking for white-only hours is not even on the same page.
posted by jeather at 8:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
...having body autonomy and getting to decide who they touch and who touches them...
Yes, very much this. I don't care if they are avoiding it for the single worst, most misogynist reason you can think of: having someone be compelled by law to make physical contact with another person is abhorrent.
posted by griphus at 8:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yes, very much this. I don't care if they are avoiding it for the single worst, most misogynist reason you can think of: having someone be compelled by law to make physical contact with another person is abhorrent.
posted by griphus at 8:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
the sobsister: Life is muddy water, but there's a clear difference between women's only swimming hours for Hasidic Women at one pool in Brooklyn, and a Kim Davis type denying same-sex marriage licenses. You can allow the former, and draw the line well before the latter. If anything, the swimming pool is NOT allowing equal service to the community by not having times when Hasidic women can swim.
posted by SansPoint at 8:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 8:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Problems like this are impossible to reconcile to everyone's satisfaction based on inflexible principle. Society is massively complex, and slack like accommodations based on modesty codes in minor cases like this can be useful in forging bonds between different factions. There may be other situations where accommodation may go too far, but this particular case seems minor and has valid nonreligious bases.
posted by Small Dollar at 9:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Small Dollar at 9:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
the idea of being able to go swimming do X without dealing with our culture's virulent misogyny sounds more like liberation than repression [my bold, ed.]
don't we already have some thoughts about separate-but-equal...
The choices are:
1: No women-only hours, meaning Hasidic (and some Muslim, and any woman who'd like to go swimming there without men staring/judging/etc) women cannot go swimming.
2: Women-only hours.
3. Tax-free religious organizations can run their own swimming pools.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
don't we already have some thoughts about separate-but-equal...
The choices are:
1: No women-only hours, meaning Hasidic (and some Muslim, and any woman who'd like to go swimming there without men staring/judging/etc) women cannot go swimming.
2: Women-only hours.
3. Tax-free religious organizations can run their own swimming pools.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
The issue is not the policy itself, because as a number of posters here have demonstrated, having women only hours at the pool has a strong, secular argument for the policy.
The issue is that the policy is being implemented on purely religious grounds. The case isn't being made that women-only hours has a strong benefit for the community as a whole - instead, the policy is being argued as religious accommodation.
So let's have women-only hours - but let's argue for then from a positive, secular basis, because there's a strong argument that can be made there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:10 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
The issue is that the policy is being implemented on purely religious grounds. The case isn't being made that women-only hours has a strong benefit for the community as a whole - instead, the policy is being argued as religious accommodation.
So let's have women-only hours - but let's argue for then from a positive, secular basis, because there's a strong argument that can be made there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:10 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
feckless fecal fear mongering,
Sorry, but Kim Davis is precisely on point. One person's "bigotry" is another's "request for reasonable accommodation."
If the pool itself announced that there were women-only hours, and didn't cite requests from the Hasidic community as the reason, would you be okay with it? Effects matter, not causes.
No, in this case and as I noted upthread, causes very much do matter. If the pool itself, unprompted, announced "ladies-only" hours, that would be, as I wrote, both exclusive-yet-inclusive and fine. If, on the other hand, the pool is petitioned to act, and does, on any discriminatory grounds—religious, racial, gender-based, etc.—than that, to my mind, is wrong.
My intent is not to posit some unachievable ideal of evenhandedness and equitable action. Cutting the Gordian knot, public pools (schools, librairies, parks, etc.) are open to everyone, always. As noted upthread, if a specific group wants to rent the facility for a private event or series of events, that is entirely within precedent, and everyone wins.
posted by the sobsister at 9:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sorry, but Kim Davis is precisely on point. One person's "bigotry" is another's "request for reasonable accommodation."
If the pool itself announced that there were women-only hours, and didn't cite requests from the Hasidic community as the reason, would you be okay with it? Effects matter, not causes.
No, in this case and as I noted upthread, causes very much do matter. If the pool itself, unprompted, announced "ladies-only" hours, that would be, as I wrote, both exclusive-yet-inclusive and fine. If, on the other hand, the pool is petitioned to act, and does, on any discriminatory grounds—religious, racial, gender-based, etc.—than that, to my mind, is wrong.
My intent is not to posit some unachievable ideal of evenhandedness and equitable action. Cutting the Gordian knot, public pools (schools, librairies, parks, etc.) are open to everyone, always. As noted upthread, if a specific group wants to rent the facility for a private event or series of events, that is entirely within precedent, and everyone wins.
posted by the sobsister at 9:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
NoxAeternum I can make a secular argument for allowing Women Only hours on religious grounds. The community has a significant Hasidic Jewish population. Without specific hours for women-only swimming, half of a huge proportion of the community cannot use the pool. If we're serving everyone equally, or at least as equally as feasibly possible under the circumstances, is it better to have a pool that serves the specific needs of the community that uses it, rather than lock out that entire group.
posted by SansPoint at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
Community pools should serve the needs of their community. This is a community need.
posted by ChuraChura at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [50 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [50 favorites]
This would be a good hill to die on and to follow the law. This is essentially cultural extortion: allow us our bigotry or the women will suffer. It misplaces the source of that suffering in equitable, common law.
Another way to read it is that there's actually a useful principle embedded in this particular orthodoxy: creating *some* degree of separate space for men and women is probably healthy for both. That principle may be distorted or abused in some religious communities, and Hasidic communities seem to be among them. But it may be what the law is doing here is recognizing a principle it can support rather than carving out a grudging acceptance.
And to the degree the women *are* oppressed by the community, having that separate space in public probably allows for greater freedom (on preview, what Eyebrows McGee said).
posted by wildblueyonder at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Another way to read it is that there's actually a useful principle embedded in this particular orthodoxy: creating *some* degree of separate space for men and women is probably healthy for both. That principle may be distorted or abused in some religious communities, and Hasidic communities seem to be among them. But it may be what the law is doing here is recognizing a principle it can support rather than carving out a grudging acceptance.
And to the degree the women *are* oppressed by the community, having that separate space in public probably allows for greater freedom (on preview, what Eyebrows McGee said).
posted by wildblueyonder at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: If you are interested in undermining these communities that are repressive to women, one of the most important and effective ways to do that is to provide women-only gathering spaces outside the control of the men of the community where women can network and be amongst each other without men policing their thoughts and speech.
The thing is, Hasidic public spaces are already often segregated by gender and women-only spaces exist in abundance and are generally not policed by men. Hasidic women are quite efficient at policing their own. Remember that many of them are proudly Hasidic. They like their lives and take comfort in them. And they often don't leave those Hasidic public spaces to enter secular ones if they can help it. Hasidic communities are closed off and insulated by design. Women rarely have any need to leave the confines of their neighborhoods, and when they do, it's often to travel from one Hasidic community to another.
What Hasidic women need is not necessarily just women-only spaces but greater overall exposure to the secular world. And to be clear, that doesn't necessarily mean simply exposure to women in the outside community, but rather to the educational opportunities that have been denied them, external media (books, television, movies, etc.,) which shows them that there is a world outside their insular existence which does not have to be feared or shunned, interactions with men and women who have left the Hasidic life and organizations like Footsteps which can help them integrate elsewhere.
posted by zarq at 9:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
The thing is, Hasidic public spaces are already often segregated by gender and women-only spaces exist in abundance and are generally not policed by men. Hasidic women are quite efficient at policing their own. Remember that many of them are proudly Hasidic. They like their lives and take comfort in them. And they often don't leave those Hasidic public spaces to enter secular ones if they can help it. Hasidic communities are closed off and insulated by design. Women rarely have any need to leave the confines of their neighborhoods, and when they do, it's often to travel from one Hasidic community to another.
What Hasidic women need is not necessarily just women-only spaces but greater overall exposure to the secular world. And to be clear, that doesn't necessarily mean simply exposure to women in the outside community, but rather to the educational opportunities that have been denied them, external media (books, television, movies, etc.,) which shows them that there is a world outside their insular existence which does not have to be feared or shunned, interactions with men and women who have left the Hasidic life and organizations like Footsteps which can help them integrate elsewhere.
posted by zarq at 9:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
Will you feel the same when, for instance, The Nation of Islam insists on receiving equal time for Black-only swimming, or a White Supremicist church demands an Whites-only block of time?
Gender is not the same as race. Seperate black and white swim times are wrong for the same reason seperate black and white restrooms are wrong. Seperate men's and women's swim times are acceptable for the same reason seperate men's and women's locker rooms are acceptable. Different people have different levels of comfort with being exposed and somewhat vulnerable in front of the opposite sex, and those reasons have nothing to do with feeling superior to the opposite sex or wanting to oppress them (if anything, more the opposite in this case.) This is just an extension of the same reasons we have separate locker rooms--maybe not one you and I feel a need for, but I don't mind finding ways to accommodate those who do.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:15 AM on June 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
Gender is not the same as race. Seperate black and white swim times are wrong for the same reason seperate black and white restrooms are wrong. Seperate men's and women's swim times are acceptable for the same reason seperate men's and women's locker rooms are acceptable. Different people have different levels of comfort with being exposed and somewhat vulnerable in front of the opposite sex, and those reasons have nothing to do with feeling superior to the opposite sex or wanting to oppress them (if anything, more the opposite in this case.) This is just an extension of the same reasons we have separate locker rooms--maybe not one you and I feel a need for, but I don't mind finding ways to accommodate those who do.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:15 AM on June 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
To those saying "tax free religious organizations can run their own pools," bear in mind that this is Brooklyn. Do you know how much it costs to build and maintain a public swimming pool? Where the hell do they build it in a rapidly growing and gentrifying neighborhood? How long will it take to get zoning variances?
It's not as simple as calling up Bob's Discount Pools and having them install it in someone's backyard.
posted by SansPoint at 9:15 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's not as simple as calling up Bob's Discount Pools and having them install it in someone's backyard.
posted by SansPoint at 9:15 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
I can make a secular argument for allowing Women Only hours on religious grounds. The community has a significant Hasidic Jewish population. Without specific hours for women-only swimming, half of a huge proportion of the community cannot use the pool. If we're serving everyone equally, or at least as equally as feasibly possible under the circumstances, is it better to have a pool that serves the specific needs of the community that uses it, rather than lock out that entire group.
But why make that argument, when a much better argument that doesn't rely on any religious grounds is available?
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:20 AM on June 3, 2016
But why make that argument, when a much better argument that doesn't rely on any religious grounds is available?
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:20 AM on June 3, 2016
I'm sorry, I do not understand why anyone, ever, should be shamed or disapproved of for not wanting physical contact of whatever kind with someone else, for whatever reason.
Ugh, whatever. I had somebody recoil from touching my black skin* and it was racist and shitty and I totally disapproved of them. Nobody should be literally legally compelled to have physical contact with another person. But yes, if you are refusing to touch somebody's hand because they are a POC or a woman or disabled or queer or otherwise a reviled other in your eyes, that's gross and you should be fully ashamed. And religion isn't some magic dust you can sprinkle over the crudest forms of bigotry to make them acceptable.
*And another time, refuse to touch me altogether, but she was a small child and maybe didn't know better.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 9:20 AM on June 3, 2016 [38 favorites]
Ugh, whatever. I had somebody recoil from touching my black skin* and it was racist and shitty and I totally disapproved of them. Nobody should be literally legally compelled to have physical contact with another person. But yes, if you are refusing to touch somebody's hand because they are a POC or a woman or disabled or queer or otherwise a reviled other in your eyes, that's gross and you should be fully ashamed. And religion isn't some magic dust you can sprinkle over the crudest forms of bigotry to make them acceptable.
*And another time, refuse to touch me altogether, but she was a small child and maybe didn't know better.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 9:20 AM on June 3, 2016 [38 favorites]
Do you know how much it costs to build and maintain a public swimming pool?
beside the point. public stuff is public. do the work - what if a trans woman wants to swim? should be ok, right?
posted by j_curiouser at 9:21 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
beside the point. public stuff is public. do the work - what if a trans woman wants to swim? should be ok, right?
posted by j_curiouser at 9:21 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
How does this argument work when a Christian sect says they can't use the pool unless there's "straights only" time for them, because the Bible says they can't be unclothed near gay people?
I realize men and gay people are not even remotely in the same level of societal power, but if we're making the argument that religious choices and/or sexual mores are acceptable reasons to discriminate access to a public good, we have to think about what it looks like when it's used in a way that worsens, rather than improves, the balance of power in a society.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I realize men and gay people are not even remotely in the same level of societal power, but if we're making the argument that religious choices and/or sexual mores are acceptable reasons to discriminate access to a public good, we have to think about what it looks like when it's used in a way that worsens, rather than improves, the balance of power in a society.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
what if a trans woman wants to swim? should be ok, right?
Yes, that should be okay. New York City recognizes trans women as women.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
Yes, that should be okay. New York City recognizes trans women as women.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
j_curiouser: The problem is that this public pool is not serving a significant proportion of the community that it's supposed to server. Either the city bends to the community's needs, or the community bends on mixing of genders. One of these is way easier than the other.
NoxAeternium: But why make that argument, when a much better argument that doesn't rely on any religious grounds is available?
Because the community that needs to have access to access to a public good is religious.
posted by SansPoint at 9:29 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
NoxAeternium: But why make that argument, when a much better argument that doesn't rely on any religious grounds is available?
Because the community that needs to have access to access to a public good is religious.
posted by SansPoint at 9:29 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I feel like this could be pulled out of the religious vs. secular debate all together by just assigning X hours as women-only, Y hours as men-only, and the rest of the time as co-ed. If demand for women's only time greatly outstrips demand for men's only time, X and Y can be adjusted as necessary. A policy should be in place to review the time divisions every couple of years to make sure that they still meet the needs of the community.
You've got no (secular driven) gender discrimination complaints because you're giving equal opportunity to both.
You're "accommodating" religious beliefs in the same way that having most offices closed on Saturdays and Sundays accommodates the Jewish and Christian sabbaths. It's something that people who choose to follow those religions can take advantage of, and it has the benefit of also providing a space for people who would like gender-segregated time for non-religious reasons.
This breaks (for this particular case) the cycle of shittiness that starts with sexist religions and ends with secularists who are (generally, justifiably) sick of the way religion is privileged in this country overreacting to people of non-dominant religions (who are part of the problem but not really the problem when it comes to solving the separation of church and state issues).
posted by sparklemotion at 9:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
You've got no (secular driven) gender discrimination complaints because you're giving equal opportunity to both.
You're "accommodating" religious beliefs in the same way that having most offices closed on Saturdays and Sundays accommodates the Jewish and Christian sabbaths. It's something that people who choose to follow those religions can take advantage of, and it has the benefit of also providing a space for people who would like gender-segregated time for non-religious reasons.
This breaks (for this particular case) the cycle of shittiness that starts with sexist religions and ends with secularists who are (generally, justifiably) sick of the way religion is privileged in this country overreacting to people of non-dominant religions (who are part of the problem but not really the problem when it comes to solving the separation of church and state issues).
posted by sparklemotion at 9:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
The naked bigotry inherent to only being ok with women's only pool hours so long as the people using those hours don't value them for their own private religious reasons is appalling.
Our society is a secular, not atheist, and public resources are not a tool for discriminating against Hasidic women because the reasons they might value women's only time in a pool are in part religious, even if you don't like their religion. Also, as totally normal as it is to disregard the agency of women, public resources are also not a tool for condescendingly ludicrous attempts to undermine Hasidic communities by 'liberating' Hasidic women as if no one would ever choose to be Hasidic and the only people who ever enforce gender norms are men. Besides, even if Hasidic women really did need someone making their choices for them, it probably shouldn't be someone with so little knowledge of Hasidic life that they think Hasidic women have some great shortage of gender segregated time.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [38 favorites]
Our society is a secular, not atheist, and public resources are not a tool for discriminating against Hasidic women because the reasons they might value women's only time in a pool are in part religious, even if you don't like their religion. Also, as totally normal as it is to disregard the agency of women, public resources are also not a tool for condescendingly ludicrous attempts to undermine Hasidic communities by 'liberating' Hasidic women as if no one would ever choose to be Hasidic and the only people who ever enforce gender norms are men. Besides, even if Hasidic women really did need someone making their choices for them, it probably shouldn't be someone with so little knowledge of Hasidic life that they think Hasidic women have some great shortage of gender segregated time.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [38 favorites]
Because the community that needs to have access to access to a public good is religious.
That is rather illogical. There is no reason to even bring religion into the issue, if we can ground the policy in purely secular rationale.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:33 AM on June 3, 2016
That is rather illogical. There is no reason to even bring religion into the issue, if we can ground the policy in purely secular rationale.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:33 AM on June 3, 2016
I'm fairly sure Hasidic gender purity rules don't recognize transgender. So this is a cis wonen only rule if the goal is to conform to those restrictions.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
No, in this case and as I noted upthread, causes very much do matter. If the pool itself, unprompted, announced "ladies-only" hours, that would be, as I wrote, both exclusive-yet-inclusive and fine. If, on the other hand, the pool is petitioned to act, and does, on any discriminatory grounds—religious, racial, gender-based, etc.—than that, to my mind, is wrong.
...so if the pool abolished this new provision and then brought in women-only som hours for TOTALLY UNRELATED PRINCIPLE-APPROVED SECULAR REASONS, that would be fine?
How does this argument work when a Christian sect says they can't use the pool unless there's "straights only" time for them, because the Bible says they can't be unclothed near gay people?
Gender is not sexual orientation. We have gender segregated bathrooms, yet manage to not slip down some imagined slope to straight-only bathrooms at request. The same can be done here, and should, because gender and sexual orientation are fundamentally dissimilar issues.
posted by Dysk at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
...so if the pool abolished this new provision and then brought in women-only som hours for TOTALLY UNRELATED PRINCIPLE-APPROVED SECULAR REASONS, that would be fine?
How does this argument work when a Christian sect says they can't use the pool unless there's "straights only" time for them, because the Bible says they can't be unclothed near gay people?
Gender is not sexual orientation. We have gender segregated bathrooms, yet manage to not slip down some imagined slope to straight-only bathrooms at request. The same can be done here, and should, because gender and sexual orientation are fundamentally dissimilar issues.
posted by Dysk at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
So this is a cis wonen only rule if the goal is to conform to those restrictions.
As has been noted several times in the thread already, New York recognises trans women as women, so any public body specifying something as women-only is inclusive of trans women.
posted by Dysk at 9:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
As has been noted several times in the thread already, New York recognises trans women as women, so any public body specifying something as women-only is inclusive of trans women.
posted by Dysk at 9:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
Then they get accused of being disingenuous and trying to hide their true motives, NoxAeternum. I don't think that's the way to go.
posted by ODiV at 9:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ODiV at 9:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm an atheist and I love the idea of women-only swim hours and would be more inclined to use a pool during those hours.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 9:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
Why aren't the Hasidic men asking for men's only hours? Surely they are not allowed to swim with scantily clad women if they can't even SIT next to a fully clothed woman on an airplane? (my apologies if I somehow missed this being addressed already, but reading the articles and perusing the comments, I didn't see it.)
Also, I totally understand women wanting women-only hours and can support that, but the religious accommodation aspect makes me uneasy for all the reasons being pointed out here.
Grrr. Arrgghhh. DEMOCRACY IS HARD Y'ALL.
posted by pjsky at 9:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Also, I totally understand women wanting women-only hours and can support that, but the religious accommodation aspect makes me uneasy for all the reasons being pointed out here.
Grrr. Arrgghhh. DEMOCRACY IS HARD Y'ALL.
posted by pjsky at 9:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
The naked bigotry inherent to being ok with women's only pool hours so long as the people using those hours don't value them for their own private religious reasons is appalling.
That's not what anyone is saying, and it's pretty damn offensive to make that argument. If Hasidic women value women-only hours for religious reasons, that's between them and their belief, and more power to them.
No, what is bothering people is that, instead of the policy being grounded in secular rationales about providing women of all backgrounds in the community a time to swim free of being leered at, it's being pushed as a religious accommodation for the Hasidic women of the community. Which is not just problematic because the religious grounding makes the policy a lot more legally questionable, but also because since the policy is being implemented for Hasidic women, there's an uncomfortable open question of whether or not non-Hasidic women would be disallowed (if not officially, then socially.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
That's not what anyone is saying, and it's pretty damn offensive to make that argument. If Hasidic women value women-only hours for religious reasons, that's between them and their belief, and more power to them.
No, what is bothering people is that, instead of the policy being grounded in secular rationales about providing women of all backgrounds in the community a time to swim free of being leered at, it's being pushed as a religious accommodation for the Hasidic women of the community. Which is not just problematic because the religious grounding makes the policy a lot more legally questionable, but also because since the policy is being implemented for Hasidic women, there's an uncomfortable open question of whether or not non-Hasidic women would be disallowed (if not officially, then socially.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
NoxAeternium: It's a religious group that has the issue. It's a religious community wants to use the pool. We can't divorce the religion of the people involved from their needs. There's a valid secular argument to women's only hours, true, and it can be made—but we can't ignore the religious argument here.
I'd love to have a purely secular debate about this, as I'm a purely secular person. But the world we live in is not purely secular.
posted by SansPoint at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd love to have a purely secular debate about this, as I'm a purely secular person. But the world we live in is not purely secular.
posted by SansPoint at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
but we can't ignore the religious argument here.
Yes, we can. We can make the argument that women only hours are a positive for women of all backgrounds to have a safe space to swim, for whatever reason, secular or religious. And we should make that argument, so that those women only hours are open to women of all backgrounds in the community.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes, we can. We can make the argument that women only hours are a positive for women of all backgrounds to have a safe space to swim, for whatever reason, secular or religious. And we should make that argument, so that those women only hours are open to women of all backgrounds in the community.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
If men in the community want men-only hours and have been unable to get it, that's a problem. If it happens that, in this neighbourhood, only women want women-only hours, then why would the pool bother to have men-only hours?
Maybe the Jews and atheists and Muslims should band together to complain that this public pool closes for religious holidays.
posted by jeather at 9:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe the Jews and atheists and Muslims should band together to complain that this public pool closes for religious holidays.
posted by jeather at 9:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Then they get accused of being disingenuous and trying to hide their true motives, NoxAeternum. I don't think that's the way to go.
It would be very hard to make that argument against a broad coalition of women of all backgrounds arguing for women-only hours as a communal safe space for them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would be very hard to make that argument against a broad coalition of women of all backgrounds arguing for women-only hours as a communal safe space for them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
mattdidthat: Without the women's only hours, the pool isn't for everyone. It's only for non-Hasidim. Ideally, everyone who wants to use the pool would be able to do so whenever they want. But we don't have that. We need to make some accommodation for someone, and as I mentioned SEVERAL TIMES up thread, better to have time where men can't swim than to keep a huge chunk of a community from swimming at all times.
And, look, I don't like the whole gender division stuff in Hasidic Judaism either. But you know what? That's not going to go away just because a public pool won't provide women's only hours. If something's going to bend, six hours where men can't go swimming isn't that much of an imposition. And this is coming from a atheist male.
posted by SansPoint at 9:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
And, look, I don't like the whole gender division stuff in Hasidic Judaism either. But you know what? That's not going to go away just because a public pool won't provide women's only hours. If something's going to bend, six hours where men can't go swimming isn't that much of an imposition. And this is coming from a atheist male.
posted by SansPoint at 9:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, we can. We can make the argument that women only hours are a positive for women of all backgrounds to have a safe space to swim, for whatever reason, secular or religious.
I don't think this is on point though. "Safe space to swim" implies something gross about men being inherently dangerous. I don't have an issue with women's only spaces, but the safety argument doesn't work for me.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think this is on point though. "Safe space to swim" implies something gross about men being inherently dangerous. I don't have an issue with women's only spaces, but the safety argument doesn't work for me.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
There was a similar story about gender-segregated buses in Brooklyn (a public bus line operated by a supposedly hasidic-owned private company)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
public pools (schools, librairies, parks, etc.) are open to everyone, always
To everyone at different times, at least in every neighbourhood I've ever lived in.
Lane Swim 8-10
Youth Swim 10-12
POOL CLOSED FOR LIFEGUARD TRAINING 12-2
Swimming Lessons 2-6 (no Rec Swim)
Free Rec Swim 6-10
Check the schedule before you go!
posted by chococat at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [27 favorites]
To everyone at different times, at least in every neighbourhood I've ever lived in.
Lane Swim 8-10
Youth Swim 10-12
POOL CLOSED FOR LIFEGUARD TRAINING 12-2
Swimming Lessons 2-6 (no Rec Swim)
Free Rec Swim 6-10
Check the schedule before you go!
posted by chococat at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [27 favorites]
I'm an atheist and I love the idea of women-only swim hours and would be more inclined to use a pool during those hours.
That's great. You should ask your local pool about it. At the same time, I trust you see that there is a wide, wide chasm yawning between asking for women's-only hours because G*d/Jesus/Allah doesn't allow your limbs to be seen by easily tempted men and asking for them for all the other reasons listed above.
And some commenters are still using a noble effect (Hasidic women get some pool time!) to paper over a cause (request for religion-based discrimination/accommodation) that, in other contexts, gets torches burning and pitchforks waving on MeFi. Beware the warm puppy.
posted by the sobsister at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
That's great. You should ask your local pool about it. At the same time, I trust you see that there is a wide, wide chasm yawning between asking for women's-only hours because G*d/Jesus/Allah doesn't allow your limbs to be seen by easily tempted men and asking for them for all the other reasons listed above.
And some commenters are still using a noble effect (Hasidic women get some pool time!) to paper over a cause (request for religion-based discrimination/accommodation) that, in other contexts, gets torches burning and pitchforks waving on MeFi. Beware the warm puppy.
posted by the sobsister at 9:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't think this is on point though. "Safe space to swim" implies something gross about men being inherently dangerous. I don't have an issue with women's only spaces, but the safety argument doesn't work for me.
We are, though, whether or not we want to admit that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
We are, though, whether or not we want to admit that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
RobotVoodooPower: As one of the people defending the Women's Only hours at the pool, I'll happily draw the line at a bus route. If they're serving the Hasidic and non-Hasidic communities who need transportation, they shouldn't be allowed to enforce gender segregation.
One key difference between the pool and the bus is that aside from 6 hours, the pool is mixed-gender the entire rest of the time. You can't say "Oh, the B110 is gender-segregated for only these times" without having a dramatic impact on bus service for the entire community.
posted by SansPoint at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
One key difference between the pool and the bus is that aside from 6 hours, the pool is mixed-gender the entire rest of the time. You can't say "Oh, the B110 is gender-segregated for only these times" without having a dramatic impact on bus service for the entire community.
posted by SansPoint at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
"How does this argument work when a Christian sect says they can't use the pool unless there's "straights only" time for them, because the Bible says they can't be unclothed near gay people?"
I spend a shitload of time reading up on the crazy of ultra-fundamentalist Christian sects in the US and this is not an argument any of them have ever made that I have ever seen because a) the Bible doesn't care how naked you are around gay people, just members of the opposite sex and b) they mostly don't believe homosexuality is a thing you can be, but a choice that you make, so nobody "is" gay. Which is why a lot of their "stop being gay!" summer camp programs are pretty much the gayest things in the history of the universe, because if you are a man who likes men being around mostly-naked manly men doing manly mostly-naked things will obviously fix the problem because the problem is inadequate exposure to stereotypically male patriarchal activities and too much exposure to women.
Honestly the more analogous situation would be a gay community saying "hey can we have some hours at the pool that are safe for us to swim without harassment and conversion attempts from fundamentalist Christians?" (Which really should be ALL the hours because nobody should be harassing other people at the swimming pool, but we do not live in a world with Platonically ideal swimming pool patrons and a lot of the behavior policing is done by teenaged lifeguards who can only be expected to get into it so far with terrible people, so.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:01 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
I spend a shitload of time reading up on the crazy of ultra-fundamentalist Christian sects in the US and this is not an argument any of them have ever made that I have ever seen because a) the Bible doesn't care how naked you are around gay people, just members of the opposite sex and b) they mostly don't believe homosexuality is a thing you can be, but a choice that you make, so nobody "is" gay. Which is why a lot of their "stop being gay!" summer camp programs are pretty much the gayest things in the history of the universe, because if you are a man who likes men being around mostly-naked manly men doing manly mostly-naked things will obviously fix the problem because the problem is inadequate exposure to stereotypically male patriarchal activities and too much exposure to women.
Honestly the more analogous situation would be a gay community saying "hey can we have some hours at the pool that are safe for us to swim without harassment and conversion attempts from fundamentalist Christians?" (Which really should be ALL the hours because nobody should be harassing other people at the swimming pool, but we do not live in a world with Platonically ideal swimming pool patrons and a lot of the behavior policing is done by teenaged lifeguards who can only be expected to get into it so far with terrible people, so.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:01 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
I get that this is a great opportunity to slam those skeezy, skeezy men, but I'm surprised nobody is bringing up the point of children and teenagers. I was a city lifeguard in my teens and, good thing or not, those morning weekday hours during the summer were commonly filled with older children, preteens, and younger teenagers who's (often single) mothers parked them there while they went and did whatever they had to do. So I suspect this causes a problem for a lot of low-income woman in that area.
posted by overhauser at 10:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by overhauser at 10:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The YMCA where I used to live had "NBA!"* swim times. It was designed to be a place where young Muslim girls and their mothers could use the pool and take swimming lessons without men or boys around. I'm not sure what the attendance was like, but I thought it was a good idea. Because... [steps on soapbox]
Being able to swim is vitally important, particularly in a place like Minnesota where so much of our culture revolves around our rivers and lakes. Children not learning how to swim is an access issue and a class issue. Being able to learn how to swim, how to maneuver in water, how to be safe in water, and how to have FUN in the water is something that every child should learn regardless of gender, race, class, ability to pay, etc. I think the local Y did a good thing by realizing that there was a segment of the population that were not using the pool, and finding a way to make it accessible to them. Women and girls are able to use the pool comfortably, learn how to swim, and have fun. I think that outweighs the cost of other patrons not being able to use the pool for those couple of hours a week.**
I won't touch whether or not a certain culture is "right" or "wrong" for having such-and-such beliefs. For me, the safety and education aspect of teaching women - ALL women - to swim makes this a no-brainer for me.
* No Boys Allowed! The lifeguards are also female, and they put coverings on the windows so that people cannot see in.
** People can't always use the pool all the time, anyway. There are lap-swim-only hours in which play and non-lap-swimmers are not able to use the pool; family hours in which they do not set up the lap-swimming lanes; hours in which the pool is for classes in which it's not open to the public; hours in which the pool is for therapeutic and adaptive use in which lap-swimming and play are not allowed; etc.
posted by Elly Vortex at 10:05 AM on June 3, 2016 [43 favorites]
Being able to swim is vitally important, particularly in a place like Minnesota where so much of our culture revolves around our rivers and lakes. Children not learning how to swim is an access issue and a class issue. Being able to learn how to swim, how to maneuver in water, how to be safe in water, and how to have FUN in the water is something that every child should learn regardless of gender, race, class, ability to pay, etc. I think the local Y did a good thing by realizing that there was a segment of the population that were not using the pool, and finding a way to make it accessible to them. Women and girls are able to use the pool comfortably, learn how to swim, and have fun. I think that outweighs the cost of other patrons not being able to use the pool for those couple of hours a week.**
I won't touch whether or not a certain culture is "right" or "wrong" for having such-and-such beliefs. For me, the safety and education aspect of teaching women - ALL women - to swim makes this a no-brainer for me.
* No Boys Allowed! The lifeguards are also female, and they put coverings on the windows so that people cannot see in.
** People can't always use the pool all the time, anyway. There are lap-swim-only hours in which play and non-lap-swimmers are not able to use the pool; family hours in which they do not set up the lap-swimming lanes; hours in which the pool is for classes in which it's not open to the public; hours in which the pool is for therapeutic and adaptive use in which lap-swimming and play are not allowed; etc.
posted by Elly Vortex at 10:05 AM on June 3, 2016 [43 favorites]
those morning weekday hours during the summer were commonly filled with...
Morning weekday hours outside of the summer public pools are usually closed because no one is around to use them. The article wasn't discussing summer hours but non-summers hours as far as I could read.
Again the issue of how to allocate the schedule time is different from whether women-only hours have a fundamental right to exist.
public pools (schools, librairies, parks, etc.) are open to everyone, always
What? No. Public pools are open way less than 50% of the time. They're expensive to run. Indoor pools have pretty narrow peak usage patterns. Outdoor pools outside of California, Nevada and Florida (and similar climates) aren't usable half the year.
Have some of you ever even been to a pool?
posted by GuyZero at 10:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Morning weekday hours outside of the summer public pools are usually closed because no one is around to use them. The article wasn't discussing summer hours but non-summers hours as far as I could read.
Again the issue of how to allocate the schedule time is different from whether women-only hours have a fundamental right to exist.
public pools (schools, librairies, parks, etc.) are open to everyone, always
What? No. Public pools are open way less than 50% of the time. They're expensive to run. Indoor pools have pretty narrow peak usage patterns. Outdoor pools outside of California, Nevada and Florida (and similar climates) aren't usable half the year.
Have some of you ever even been to a pool?
posted by GuyZero at 10:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
How does this argument work when a Christian sect says they can't use the pool unless there's "straights only" time for them, because the Bible says they can't be unclothed near gay people?
No one makes that argument. It's a strawman.
posted by GuyZero at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
No one makes that argument. It's a strawman.
posted by GuyZero at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
SansPoint,
And, look, I don't like the whole gender division stuff in Hasidic Judaism either. But you know what? That's not going to go away just because a public pool won't provide women's only hours. If something's going to bend, six hours where men can't go swimming isn't that much of an imposition. And this is coming from a atheist male.
That's not the first use of "and I'm an atheist" in this thread, and, no offense, but not buying into religion does not make these arguments more compelling.
The point is that accommodating an unreasonable request—and, yes, any request for religious accommodation that involves discriminatory use of public resources is, to my mind, unreasonable—simply because the requester's religion won't bend to circumstances simply invites continued and escalated demands. Precedent is powerful. And the fact that no-one writing here has suggested asking the Hasidic community to compromise on its restrictions in this respect speaks to the fact that this is a one-way street, and the collective, secular We as well as the affected women can like it or lump it.
posted by the sobsister at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
And, look, I don't like the whole gender division stuff in Hasidic Judaism either. But you know what? That's not going to go away just because a public pool won't provide women's only hours. If something's going to bend, six hours where men can't go swimming isn't that much of an imposition. And this is coming from a atheist male.
That's not the first use of "and I'm an atheist" in this thread, and, no offense, but not buying into religion does not make these arguments more compelling.
The point is that accommodating an unreasonable request—and, yes, any request for religious accommodation that involves discriminatory use of public resources is, to my mind, unreasonable—simply because the requester's religion won't bend to circumstances simply invites continued and escalated demands. Precedent is powerful. And the fact that no-one writing here has suggested asking the Hasidic community to compromise on its restrictions in this respect speaks to the fact that this is a one-way street, and the collective, secular We as well as the affected women can like it or lump it.
posted by the sobsister at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
Boohoo. Parks and Recreation isn't banning them from using a public pool, their idiotic religious rules are.
There's a whole legal and moral principle called "reasonable accommodation" and while it has its corner cases it's a good thing on balance.
If you're against reasonable accommodation, so be it, but don't expect that position to be lauded.
posted by GuyZero at 10:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
There's a whole legal and moral principle called "reasonable accommodation" and while it has its corner cases it's a good thing on balance.
If you're against reasonable accommodation, so be it, but don't expect that position to be lauded.
posted by GuyZero at 10:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
I know that this is being done in the name of an extremely conservative religion, but it is worth remembering that a lot of women outside of that faith would welcome the absence of men for completely different reasons.
The problem is that this extremely conservative religious sect (like many others) has demonstrated zero qualms about trying to impose its values on the rest of the community. Look at what's happened in Kiryas Joel (and I'm not talking about the child sexual abuse allegations, which can occur in any closed authoritarian community and which I certainly do not attribute to the residents' religious beliefs). Look at the schools of East Ramapo. I'm absolutely willing to take a hard line on city government privileging the beliefs of religious fundamentalists when those beliefs conflict meaningfully with others' free access to public resources. This is a secular state. If your religion means you can't swim unless you evict others from the public pool, then I guess you're not getting in the pool.
(I also find it a little odd that people think that Hasidic women have a shortage of access to women's-only spaces. Gender segregation among adults is an organizing principle of their community life.)
posted by praemunire at 10:15 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
The problem is that this extremely conservative religious sect (like many others) has demonstrated zero qualms about trying to impose its values on the rest of the community. Look at what's happened in Kiryas Joel (and I'm not talking about the child sexual abuse allegations, which can occur in any closed authoritarian community and which I certainly do not attribute to the residents' religious beliefs). Look at the schools of East Ramapo. I'm absolutely willing to take a hard line on city government privileging the beliefs of religious fundamentalists when those beliefs conflict meaningfully with others' free access to public resources. This is a secular state. If your religion means you can't swim unless you evict others from the public pool, then I guess you're not getting in the pool.
(I also find it a little odd that people think that Hasidic women have a shortage of access to women's-only spaces. Gender segregation among adults is an organizing principle of their community life.)
posted by praemunire at 10:15 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
(I also find it a little odd that people think that Hasidic women have a shortage of access to women's-only spaces. Gender segregation among adults is an organizing principle of their community life.)
But we are specifically talking about pools in Brooklyn. Which there aren't a lot of.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
But we are specifically talking about pools in Brooklyn. Which there aren't a lot of.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's a whole legal and moral principle called "reasonable accommodation"
Reasonable accommodation in the religious context does not require discriminatory use of public resources.
posted by praemunire at 10:18 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
Reasonable accommodation in the religious context does not require discriminatory use of public resources.
posted by praemunire at 10:18 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
the sobsister: The thing is, the Hasidic community is as likely to compromise on these restrictions as Donald Trump dropping out of the Presidential race to endorse Dr. Jill Stein.
The request for women-only swimming isn't unreasonable, for reasons outlined elsewhere in the thread. There's a whole holy host of great, secular reasons. We can factor those in, as well as the needs of the Hasidic community. You can have both.
I will repeat the same point yet again here. There are two shitty options.
posted by SansPoint at 10:19 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The request for women-only swimming isn't unreasonable, for reasons outlined elsewhere in the thread. There's a whole holy host of great, secular reasons. We can factor those in, as well as the needs of the Hasidic community. You can have both.
I will repeat the same point yet again here. There are two shitty options.
- No Hasidic women can use the pool, but everyone else can use it at all times.
- Hasidic women can use the pool at some times, and everyone else can use it the rest of the time.
posted by SansPoint at 10:19 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
If your religion requires you to discriminate against or segregate yourself from [Vulnerable group here], my government has no business helping you to do so.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:21 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by crush-onastick at 10:21 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
But we are specifically talking about pools in Brooklyn. Which there aren't a lot of.
The argument here was that Hasidic women would benefit from access to a women's-only space to socialize, not just a pool.
But, honestly? I care a lot more about the separation of church and state than I care about whether a group of religious women gets to use a public pool under the conditions they prefer. I can imagine other contexts in which the competing value is more important (e.g., access to voting, or to the courtroom) and the conflict harder, but, in this case, it's not.
posted by praemunire at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
The argument here was that Hasidic women would benefit from access to a women's-only space to socialize, not just a pool.
But, honestly? I care a lot more about the separation of church and state than I care about whether a group of religious women gets to use a public pool under the conditions they prefer. I can imagine other contexts in which the competing value is more important (e.g., access to voting, or to the courtroom) and the conflict harder, but, in this case, it's not.
posted by praemunire at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Morning weekday hours outside of the summer public pools are usually closed because no one is around to use them. The article wasn't discussing summer hours but non-summers hours as far as I could read.
So the women-only hours do not exist in the summer? I don't think that's true. But it is very true that some single parents need a temporary free babysitter when school is out. I'm just pointing out that this policy hits a vulnerable segment of the population. And if you remember that woman who was arrested for parking her daughter at a park, you know this is a real problem, and the pool has served as a safe space in the city to park you children. I should know. I was not only a lifeguard, when younger I was one of those kids.
posted by overhauser at 10:24 AM on June 3, 2016
So the women-only hours do not exist in the summer? I don't think that's true. But it is very true that some single parents need a temporary free babysitter when school is out. I'm just pointing out that this policy hits a vulnerable segment of the population. And if you remember that woman who was arrested for parking her daughter at a park, you know this is a real problem, and the pool has served as a safe space in the city to park you children. I should know. I was not only a lifeguard, when younger I was one of those kids.
posted by overhauser at 10:24 AM on June 3, 2016
But it is very true that some single parents need a temporary free babysitter when school is out.
You can't just leave your kids at a NYC public pool.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
You can't just leave your kids at a NYC public pool.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Safe space to swim" implies something gross about men being inherently dangerous. I don't have an issue with women's only spaces, but the safety argument doesn't work for me.
On one level: men aren't all inherently dangerous, but statistically, as a class, we seem to be more likely to be violent.
On another level: men are pretty likely to view women and their bodies sexually. This can be great. It's not an inherent evil, depending on how one behaves (and if one retains some capacity to see people wholly). But it does change the social dynamic in a way that's worth recognizing. Physical safety may not be the issue here, but a space with a certain degree of freedom from the distractions of burdens of that layer of interaction can be really nice.
And the recognition of this is one of the things I think is at the core of Hasidic and other religious codes surrounding the interaction between men and women. There may be other principles behind it too, some of them less agreeable in a secular society, but this one is pretty recognizable and agreeable on a secular level.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
On one level: men aren't all inherently dangerous, but statistically, as a class, we seem to be more likely to be violent.
On another level: men are pretty likely to view women and their bodies sexually. This can be great. It's not an inherent evil, depending on how one behaves (and if one retains some capacity to see people wholly). But it does change the social dynamic in a way that's worth recognizing. Physical safety may not be the issue here, but a space with a certain degree of freedom from the distractions of burdens of that layer of interaction can be really nice.
And the recognition of this is one of the things I think is at the core of Hasidic and other religious codes surrounding the interaction between men and women. There may be other principles behind it too, some of them less agreeable in a secular society, but this one is pretty recognizable and agreeable on a secular level.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
But it is very true that some single parents need a temporary free babysitter when school is out.
I would be surprised if NY pools allowed minors to be dropped off without a parent present at any time of the year. Now, yes, it probably happens, but as a former lifeguard I did many thing but I was not technically a babysitter. Sign your kid up for daycamp.
posted by GuyZero at 10:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would be surprised if NY pools allowed minors to be dropped off without a parent present at any time of the year. Now, yes, it probably happens, but as a former lifeguard I did many thing but I was not technically a babysitter. Sign your kid up for daycamp.
posted by GuyZero at 10:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I will repeat the same point yet again here. There are two shitty options.
No Hasidic women can use the pool, but everyone else can use it at all times.
Hasidic women can use the pool at some times, and everyone else can use it the rest of the time.
Those aren't actually similar at all, though. In one case, there are people who can't use the pool at all, and in the other everyone gets to use the pool, just not all at once (which, as people have already pointed out, is already the case at many pools.)
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:29 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
No Hasidic women can use the pool, but everyone else can use it at all times.
Hasidic women can use the pool at some times, and everyone else can use it the rest of the time.
Those aren't actually similar at all, though. In one case, there are people who can't use the pool at all, and in the other everyone gets to use the pool, just not all at once (which, as people have already pointed out, is already the case at many pools.)
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:29 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
I will repeat the same point yet again here. There are two shitty options.
1. No Hasidic women can use the pool, but everyone else can use it at all times.
2. Hasidic women can use the pool at some times, and everyone else can use it the rest of the time.
This is the correct option:
Hasidic all women (including secular, gay, transgender) can use the pool at some times, and everyone else can use it the rest of the time.
I have zero problem with a gender segregated swim time, as long as that time occurs in-- de facto and de jure-- a secularized space accommodating and welcoming all women.
posted by Chrischris at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
1. No Hasidic women can use the pool, but everyone else can use it at all times.
2. Hasidic women can use the pool at some times, and everyone else can use it the rest of the time.
This is the correct option:
I have zero problem with a gender segregated swim time, as long as that time occurs in-- de facto and de jure-- a secularized space accommodating and welcoming all women.
posted by Chrischris at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
I will repeat the same point yet again here. There are two shitty options....
I keep seeing that the choice is between barring men sometimes, and barring Hasidic women all the time.
I'm one of the people who believes that there's a way forward for women only hours, but I kind of think that the choice being presented is a false dichotomy.
Hasidic women aren't barred from using the pool during the co-ed times, they are choosing not to. Just like non-believers who don't want to swim in front of men may choose not to.
It's not unreasonable to push back on people's personal choices, especially when they disadvantage others. In this case though, a reasonable accommodation for these choices can be made, it would however be nice if it could be made in a not inherently sexist way.
posted by sparklemotion at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I keep seeing that the choice is between barring men sometimes, and barring Hasidic women all the time.
I'm one of the people who believes that there's a way forward for women only hours, but I kind of think that the choice being presented is a false dichotomy.
Hasidic women aren't barred from using the pool during the co-ed times, they are choosing not to. Just like non-believers who don't want to swim in front of men may choose not to.
It's not unreasonable to push back on people's personal choices, especially when they disadvantage others. In this case though, a reasonable accommodation for these choices can be made, it would however be nice if it could be made in a not inherently sexist way.
posted by sparklemotion at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Honestly the more analogous situation would be a gay community saying "hey can we have some hours at the pool that are safe for us to swim without harassment and conversion attempts from fundamentalist Christians?"
Seattle's had a series of All Gender All Body Swim times which are explicitly no gender policing events. Reading between the lines of what little information there is, it sounds like it was privately organized with the hope that the city would pick it up as official programming after a community was demonstrated for it, but that didn't happen, which is too bad.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seattle's had a series of All Gender All Body Swim times which are explicitly no gender policing events. Reading between the lines of what little information there is, it sounds like it was privately organized with the hope that the city would pick it up as official programming after a community was demonstrated for it, but that didn't happen, which is too bad.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
It absolutely is religious discrimination to say "you can have this for these reasons, but you can't have it if you want it because your Hassidic". If you allow gender segregated pool hours, you have to allow that to everyone, otherwise you are engaging in religious discrimination. Not allowing unreasonable religious accommodations is fine, but given that this is an accommodation often made to other groups for other reasons, this accommodation is not unreasonable.
posted by Dysk at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
There was a similar story about gender-segregated buses in Brooklyn (a public bus line operated by a supposedly hasidic-owned private company)
The private company (Private Transportation Corporation) is Hasidic-owned and only operates in Hasidic areas. They own and maintain their buses, hire their drivers, operate under the NYCDOT and are hired by the MTA to cover a specific route. This was commonplace in the boroughs up until 2004, when seven private companies (including the well-known Green and Orange lines) were merged into the MTA. See this pdf for an overview.
posted by zarq at 10:35 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The private company (Private Transportation Corporation) is Hasidic-owned and only operates in Hasidic areas. They own and maintain their buses, hire their drivers, operate under the NYCDOT and are hired by the MTA to cover a specific route. This was commonplace in the boroughs up until 2004, when seven private companies (including the well-known Green and Orange lines) were merged into the MTA. See this pdf for an overview.
posted by zarq at 10:35 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
If your religion requires you to discriminate against or segregate yourself from [Vulnerable group here], my government has no business helping you to do so.
Women are the [vulnerable group here] in this scenario, so all the government would be doing is ensuring that the vulnerable group is not cut off from public services in addition to being segregated within their religious community.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:36 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Women are the [vulnerable group here] in this scenario, so all the government would be doing is ensuring that the vulnerable group is not cut off from public services in addition to being segregated within their religious community.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:36 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
My local city pool rents itself out to private parties, is that a thing in Brooklyn?
We still have controversy, though, because a group of Naturists have been renting it out and some of the city employees didn't like seeing naked people, so the city manager made it against the rules to be naked. If it's the pool I swam in as a kid, it's indoors, so that'd be the appeal for Naturists, I guess. Indoor pool in California, wth.
Southern California problems vs. New York City problems.
posted by Huck500 at 10:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
We still have controversy, though, because a group of Naturists have been renting it out and some of the city employees didn't like seeing naked people, so the city manager made it against the rules to be naked. If it's the pool I swam in as a kid, it's indoors, so that'd be the appeal for Naturists, I guess. Indoor pool in California, wth.
Southern California problems vs. New York City problems.
posted by Huck500 at 10:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sign your kid up for daycamp.
That's an opinion that comes from a pretty privileged place. The majority of daycamps cost a lot of money. The few that are free in the city have long waiting lists and require lots of time and effort to sign up for that a poor person might not have the knowledge or time to put in. Kind of like getting in to the better schools in the city. Finally, these camps have pretty inflexible rules about picking up and dropping off your kids at very specific times which might not be great for people working two or more jobs.
posted by overhauser at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
That's an opinion that comes from a pretty privileged place. The majority of daycamps cost a lot of money. The few that are free in the city have long waiting lists and require lots of time and effort to sign up for that a poor person might not have the knowledge or time to put in. Kind of like getting in to the better schools in the city. Finally, these camps have pretty inflexible rules about picking up and dropping off your kids at very specific times which might not be great for people working two or more jobs.
posted by overhauser at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
But, honestly? I care a lot more about the separation of church and state than I care about whether a group of religious women gets to use a public pool under the conditions they prefer. I can imagine other contexts in which the competing value is more important (e.g., access to voting, or to the courtroom) and the conflict harder, but, in this case, it's not.We're talking about Hasidic women making what is apparently a totally normal request of a public pool that is often made for either partly religious or entirely secular reasons. The only real intrusion of religion into state business that anyone in this thread is talking about is the idea that these women either need to strip themselves of the set of clothes they consider modest in front of men in order to use public accommodations or that they need to strip themselves of their religion to even dare make an apparently totally normal request. There are important senses in which bald is in fact a hairstyle, and Atheism enshrined in this way into the state would make it a state religion distinct from secularism. Just because you may not like Hasidic Judaism doesn't mean that its ok to use the apparatus of the state to discriminate against Hasidic Jews for your own ultimately religious reasons.
posted by Blasdelb at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
ChrisChris and sparklemotion
Right. The women-only hours aren't explicitly for Hasidic women, which is a good thing. There's nothing I've seen where the demand is for hours that cater specifically to Hasidic women. If the demand was for Hasidic Women Only swim times, I'd balk at that, but it's just an ask for Women Only, which benefits the Hasidic women. Fine by me.
posted by SansPoint at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Right. The women-only hours aren't explicitly for Hasidic women, which is a good thing. There's nothing I've seen where the demand is for hours that cater specifically to Hasidic women. If the demand was for Hasidic Women Only swim times, I'd balk at that, but it's just an ask for Women Only, which benefits the Hasidic women. Fine by me.
posted by SansPoint at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yeah, read praemunire's links. I'd be a lot more inclined to say "yay! Safe space for women!" if I didn't know what I know about the Hasidim in New York. A lot of their leaders are sleaze buckets. (Remember the NYC landlord who was murdered, and his Brooklyn tenants in one building had to vacate in one hour because the building was about to collapse?) They deliberately don't teach their kids English, math, or any other job skills, so they can't leave their community. The Skvere rebbe had a dissenter's house torched. In Israel, I think public buses are still illegally segregated by gender in some neighborhoods. Rumors have it that the guy behind the Failed Messiah blog was forced to shut it down; luckily there's a replacement in Lost Messiah.
This is not about women's rights, it's about drawing boundaries with a nutcase cult.
posted by Melismata at 10:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is not about women's rights, it's about drawing boundaries with a nutcase cult.
posted by Melismata at 10:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Melismata: I'm well aware of the nastiness and grossness of the Ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic communities. I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose letting the women of that community have access to a public pool, though.
posted by SansPoint at 10:45 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 10:45 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'd be a lot more inclined to say "yay! Safe space for women!" if I didn't know what I know about the Hasidim in New York.
This is a tu quoque argument. I'm no fan of Hasidic religious practice either but that doesn't make women-only swim times a bad thing. As pointed out by other posters upthread, multiple Toronto city pools have women-only swim times and everything is fine.
posted by GuyZero at 10:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
This is a tu quoque argument. I'm no fan of Hasidic religious practice either but that doesn't make women-only swim times a bad thing. As pointed out by other posters upthread, multiple Toronto city pools have women-only swim times and everything is fine.
posted by GuyZero at 10:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
That's an opinion that comes from a pretty privileged place.
it's literally illegal to abandon minor children whether you do it in a forest at night or at a NYC public pool.
posted by GuyZero at 10:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
it's literally illegal to abandon minor children whether you do it in a forest at night or at a NYC public pool.
posted by GuyZero at 10:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
real intrusion of religion into state business
. . . like closing on only one religion's holidays.
If you're okay with that but up in arms about Hasidic women getting women-only swim time (shared with non-Hasidic women), then you don't really care about secularism, you care about punishing people for having beliefs you don't like.
posted by jeather at 10:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
. . . like closing on only one religion's holidays.
If you're okay with that but up in arms about Hasidic women getting women-only swim time (shared with non-Hasidic women), then you don't really care about secularism, you care about punishing people for having beliefs you don't like.
posted by jeather at 10:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
tbh I'm all for making every known religious holiday a public holiday in the US but I'm not holding my breath.
posted by GuyZero at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
an accommodation that would be totally fine if it weren't for the religion of those asking for it isn't exactly an argument in favor of separation of church and state.
posted by nadawi at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Fortunately, the protection of freedom of religion in this country doesn't have a "yeah but you're jerks" clause or a "well but actually this needs to benefit the secular state by at least this much" test
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's an opinion that comes from a pretty privileged place.
Let me elaborate here - you are correct. It does come from a privileged place. And minor kids do get dropped off unsupervised at pools. Heaven knows that anyone claiming to have worked as a lifeguard has been a de-facto babysitter more than once. But it's also not legal or safe. If your kid wanders off the pool deck I'm not going to go find them. If the pool gets cleared for an accident or emergency then your kid is going to be completely unsupervised. I don't know what adult belongs to what kid - if some random adult comes on deck, grabs the kid and takes off I'm not as a lifeguard going to interfere.
Lifeguards are not babysitters and it's dangerous to treat them as such.
posted by GuyZero at 10:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Let me elaborate here - you are correct. It does come from a privileged place. And minor kids do get dropped off unsupervised at pools. Heaven knows that anyone claiming to have worked as a lifeguard has been a de-facto babysitter more than once. But it's also not legal or safe. If your kid wanders off the pool deck I'm not going to go find them. If the pool gets cleared for an accident or emergency then your kid is going to be completely unsupervised. I don't know what adult belongs to what kid - if some random adult comes on deck, grabs the kid and takes off I'm not as a lifeguard going to interfere.
Lifeguards are not babysitters and it's dangerous to treat them as such.
posted by GuyZero at 10:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
luckily there's a replacement in Lost Messiah.
Also see Chafraud-Depravitch.
posted by zarq at 10:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also see Chafraud-Depravitch.
posted by zarq at 10:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
use the apparatus of the state to discriminate against Hasidic Jews for your own ultimately religious reasons
Wow. Okay, if your personal choice of religious belief system does not allow you to participate fully in secular society, then you're not being discriminated against, 'k? You are removing yourself from the opportunities and responsibilities of life in anything other than a congruent theocracy.
posted by the sobsister at 10:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wow. Okay, if your personal choice of religious belief system does not allow you to participate fully in secular society, then you're not being discriminated against, 'k? You are removing yourself from the opportunities and responsibilities of life in anything other than a congruent theocracy.
posted by the sobsister at 10:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
an accommodation that would be totally fine if it weren't for the religion of those asking for it isn't exactly an argument in favor of separation of church and state.
I'd be perfectly fine with the Hasidic community supporting secular arguments for women-only hours.
I'm not fine with them requesting women-only hours as a religious accommodation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:58 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd be perfectly fine with the Hasidic community supporting secular arguments for women-only hours.
I'm not fine with them requesting women-only hours as a religious accommodation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:58 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I await the arguments about senior-only swim times and parent and tot swim times.
posted by GuyZero at 10:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 10:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I await the arguments about senior-only swim times and parent and tot swim times.
Nothing wrong with those, either.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nothing wrong with those, either.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
mattdidthat: You're making a very bad faith argument here. Hasidic women have access to the pool in the same sense that they can eat bacon double cheeseburgers. The only thing stopping them is are cultural rules.
Cultural rules with consequences within that community. It does no harm to you if these women have decided they don't want to mix with men. It does no harm to me if they don't eat bacon cheeseburgers.
I will make it clear, for the umpteenth time, that I think the Hasidic rules on gender mixing are utter bullshit. But, you know what, it doesn't matter what I think. Their community isn't going anywhere, and it's no imposition on me, and a comparatively minor one for the men of Williamsburg to have six hours when they can't use the pool.
posted by SansPoint at 11:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Cultural rules with consequences within that community. It does no harm to you if these women have decided they don't want to mix with men. It does no harm to me if they don't eat bacon cheeseburgers.
I will make it clear, for the umpteenth time, that I think the Hasidic rules on gender mixing are utter bullshit. But, you know what, it doesn't matter what I think. Their community isn't going anywhere, and it's no imposition on me, and a comparatively minor one for the men of Williamsburg to have six hours when they can't use the pool.
posted by SansPoint at 11:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mod note: Feels like at it's core there a basically intractable point of disagreement here between a few folks where it's fine that y'all have and state that disagreement but there's not much value in doing so a half-dozen times or more in a tight loop, so I'm going to suggest that if you've spent several comments already in this thread essentially restating the same position or arguing an impasse with someone it's time to go ahead and let the thread breath or take it to email.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:01 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:01 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wow. Okay, if your personal choice of religious belief system does not allow you to participate fully in secular society, then you're not being discriminated against, 'k? You are removing yourself from the opportunities and responsibilities of life in anything other than a congruent theocracy.
The accommodation being asked for is one that is often granted for all sorts of other reasons, and so asking for that does not constitute being unable to participate in secular society.
Unless of course people withhold that accommodation from you and your society specifically in a targeted way, out of some strange spite.
posted by Dysk at 11:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
The accommodation being asked for is one that is often granted for all sorts of other reasons, and so asking for that does not constitute being unable to participate in secular society.
Unless of course people withhold that accommodation from you and your society specifically in a targeted way, out of some strange spite.
posted by Dysk at 11:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
As has been noted several times in the thread already, New York recognises trans women as women, so any public body specifying something as women-only is inclusive of trans women.
However, wouldn't the understanding of the Hasidic community also have to rule here? Or are these incompatable inclusions?
posted by One Hand Slowclapping at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2016
However, wouldn't the understanding of the Hasidic community also have to rule here? Or are these incompatable inclusions?
posted by One Hand Slowclapping at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2016
wouldn't the understanding of the Hasidic community also have to rule here?
So I haven't been to this particular pool but I assume other pool rules have not been suspended. I suspect you cannot wear a head covering or a wig into the pool, two things that I think are common (required? I'm not sure) among Hasidic women. Women are probably required to wear an actual swimsuit and can't swim in t-shirts etc. (yes, not swimming in a t-shirt is an actual rule many pools have)
So the NYC Parks department is really the ultimate arbiter of what does or doesn't happen. I mean, I assume. Someone in Williamsburg should take a field trip out there.
posted by GuyZero at 11:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
So I haven't been to this particular pool but I assume other pool rules have not been suspended. I suspect you cannot wear a head covering or a wig into the pool, two things that I think are common (required? I'm not sure) among Hasidic women. Women are probably required to wear an actual swimsuit and can't swim in t-shirts etc. (yes, not swimming in a t-shirt is an actual rule many pools have)
So the NYC Parks department is really the ultimate arbiter of what does or doesn't happen. I mean, I assume. Someone in Williamsburg should take a field trip out there.
posted by GuyZero at 11:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
One Hand Slowclapping: Well, since the community isn't asking for a Hasidic-specific women's swim, just a women's only swim, they'd probably have to accept trans women under the law. Even if someone raises a complaint, the law is pretty clear on this.
Also, for what it's worth, several Jewish groups have affirmed that trans women are women under the laws of Judaism, albeit it's the Reform and several Conservative branches. Some Orthodox branches consider trans women who have had Sexual Reassignment Surgery to be criteria to allow a trans woman to be considered a woman under Jewish law. It's complex, and I'm goy as hell, so that was largely a retread of Wikipedia.
posted by SansPoint at 11:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also, for what it's worth, several Jewish groups have affirmed that trans women are women under the laws of Judaism, albeit it's the Reform and several Conservative branches. Some Orthodox branches consider trans women who have had Sexual Reassignment Surgery to be criteria to allow a trans woman to be considered a woman under Jewish law. It's complex, and I'm goy as hell, so that was largely a retread of Wikipedia.
posted by SansPoint at 11:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
However, wouldn't the understanding of the Hasidic community also have to rule here? Or are these incompatable inclusions?
I'm not understanding how Hasidim would have any say in the matter?
If a trans woman wanted to enter a women-only space, then they would be legally allowed to. The pools are run by NYC, and they rightfully recognize trans women as what they are: women.
posted by zarq at 11:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm not understanding how Hasidim would have any say in the matter?
If a trans woman wanted to enter a women-only space, then they would be legally allowed to. The pools are run by NYC, and they rightfully recognize trans women as what they are: women.
posted by zarq at 11:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you're okay with that but up in arms about Hasidic women getting women-only swim time (shared with non-Hasidic women), then you don't really care about secularism, you care about punishing people for having beliefs you don't like.
And those beliefs include seeing women as second-class citizens. Women are segregated because they are dangerous sexual creatures who could, OMG, actually tempt men. So we must protect the women.
Sounds a bit like those anti-abortion politicians who are saying we must close the clinics in order to protect those fragile women.
No, I don't like those beliefs, sorry.
posted by Melismata at 11:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
And those beliefs include seeing women as second-class citizens. Women are segregated because they are dangerous sexual creatures who could, OMG, actually tempt men. So we must protect the women.
Sounds a bit like those anti-abortion politicians who are saying we must close the clinics in order to protect those fragile women.
No, I don't like those beliefs, sorry.
posted by Melismata at 11:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wow. Okay, if your personal choice of religious belief system does not allow you to participate fully in secular society, then you're not being discriminated against, 'k? You are removing yourself from the opportunities and responsibilities of life in anything other than a congruent theocracy.This is not wanting to be around men while doing an activity that requires wearing clothes that they consider immodest, which women of all sorts of religions and lacks thereof don't want to do in all sorts of contexts all the time, and which isn't at all failing to participate fully in secular society. On the contrary, deciding that because these women happen to be religious their preferences aren't worth accommodating is failing to support a fully secular society.
posted by Blasdelb at 11:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm looking forward to arguments about Baptists demanding time to use the pool.
I know you were being facetious, but I have attended full immersion baptisms at public park beaches before, where the religious ceremony (accompanied by about a hundred witnesses) occurred not fifteen feet from several dozen families frolicking and swimming. Nobody batted an eye.
posted by Chrischris at 11:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
I know you were being facetious, but I have attended full immersion baptisms at public park beaches before, where the religious ceremony (accompanied by about a hundred witnesses) occurred not fifteen feet from several dozen families frolicking and swimming. Nobody batted an eye.
posted by Chrischris at 11:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm not understanding how Hasidim would have any say in the matter?
If a trans woman wanted to enter a women-only space, then they would be legally allowed to. The pools are run by NYC, and they rightfully recognize trans women as what they are: women.
Legally and socially allowed are two very different things, which is why I have issues with the specific manner in which women only swim times are being requested here.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:22 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
If a trans woman wanted to enter a women-only space, then they would be legally allowed to. The pools are run by NYC, and they rightfully recognize trans women as what they are: women.
Legally and socially allowed are two very different things, which is why I have issues with the specific manner in which women only swim times are being requested here.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:22 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sounds a bit like those anti-abortion politicians who are saying we must close the clinics in order to protect those fragile women.
no, it doesn't sound anything at all like that. is there anyway that people can just make their points and not reach for the most inflammatory comparisons possible?
posted by nadawi at 11:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
no, it doesn't sound anything at all like that. is there anyway that people can just make their points and not reach for the most inflammatory comparisons possible?
posted by nadawi at 11:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
This is past that line where legitimate criticism of ideas turns into something much much darker. You're free to hold as much desire to discriminate and punish others for having different values in your heart as you please, bigots are always gonna bigot, but you sure as fuck don't get to use state resources to do it. Nothing excuses this kind of naked discrimination, no matter how much you don't like someone else's religion."If you're okay with that but up in arms about Hasidic women getting women-only swim time (shared with non-Hasidic women), then you don't really care about secularism, you care about punishing people for having beliefs you don't like.""And those beliefs include seeing women as second-class citizens. Women are segregated because they are dangerous sexual creatures who could, OMG, actually tempt men. So we must protect the women.
Sounds a bit like those anti-abortion politicians who are saying we must close the clinics in order to protect those fragile women.
No, I don't like those beliefs, sorry."
posted by Blasdelb at 11:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh, hi, I have swam at this pool during women-only times! They really are Hasidim-only times, based on the rudeness with which I was treated by other swimmers — way over the normal level of people who are not great with lap-area vs fun-area. The Hasidim who live in Williamsburg really are kinda jerks to anyone who is not them (obviously not each and every person, but it is a thing, for sure.) So all you women claiming you would go to this or it is for all women — in practice it is not. I think there is still an argument for access for the community, but on the ground, it is not comfortable for all women.
Also, as someone who has swam forever and is not that thin — no one cares what you look like at the pool. I promise.
posted by dame at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [51 favorites]
Also, as someone who has swam forever and is not that thin — no one cares what you look like at the pool. I promise.
posted by dame at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [51 favorites]
They really are Hasidim-only times, based on the rudeness with which I was treated by other swimmers — way over the normal level of people who are not great with lap-area vs fun-area.
I mean, that's an entirely different, indefensible issue.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
I mean, that's an entirely different, indefensible issue.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
This is past that line where legitimate criticism of ideas turns into something much much darker. You're free to hold as much desire to discriminate and punish others for having different values in your heart as you please, bigots are always gonna bigot, but you sure as fuck don't get to use state resources to do it. Nothing excuses this kind of naked discrimination, no matter how much you don't like someone else's religion.
Is this a barely-cloaked accusation of antisemitism or is this an effort to pretend that the religious are part of a subaltern class in society which must be protected from the dominant secular class?
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is this a barely-cloaked accusation of antisemitism or is this an effort to pretend that the religious are part of a subaltern class in society which must be protected from the dominant secular class?
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also, as someone who has swam forever and is not that thin — no one cares what you look like at the pool. I promise
As a trans woman I promise you that they do.
posted by Dysk at 11:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [23 favorites]
As a trans woman I promise you that they do.
posted by Dysk at 11:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [23 favorites]
even if a woman using the pool is met with rudeness that doesn't change that by rule it's for all women. if more women started using the pool during those times, the split of hasidim and not wouldn't be so skewed and the rudeness would be less overbearing.
posted by nadawi at 11:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is this a barely-cloaked accusation of antisemitism or is this an effort to pretend that the religious are part of a subaltern class in society which must be protected from the dominant secular class?
"Secular" society in the United States is heavily influenced by Protestant Christianity. I don't think it is bad faith (pardon the pun) to say that people whose religious beliefs fall well outside of those Protestant Christian norms are discriminated against for their religious beliefs, including by secular folks.
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:39 AM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
"Secular" society in the United States is heavily influenced by Protestant Christianity. I don't think it is bad faith (pardon the pun) to say that people whose religious beliefs fall well outside of those Protestant Christian norms are discriminated against for their religious beliefs, including by secular folks.
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:39 AM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
even if a woman using the pool is met with rudeness that doesn't change that by rule it's for all women. if more women started using the pool during those times, the split of hasidim and not wouldn't be so skewed and the rudeness would be less overbearing.
If things were different, things would be different. Sure. I'm just telling you how they are now and why people would complain and be unhappy now, particularly regarding prime Sunday hours. As with the bike lanes, it is part of a longer-standing conflict between the Hasidim and their neighbors, exacerbated by gentrification and population growth on the one hand and the Hasidic approach to the wider community on the other.
posted by dame at 11:45 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
If things were different, things would be different. Sure. I'm just telling you how they are now and why people would complain and be unhappy now, particularly regarding prime Sunday hours. As with the bike lanes, it is part of a longer-standing conflict between the Hasidim and their neighbors, exacerbated by gentrification and population growth on the one hand and the Hasidic approach to the wider community on the other.
posted by dame at 11:45 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
if more women started using the pool during those times, the split of hasidim and not wouldn't be so skewed and the rudeness would be less overbearing.
I understand what you're saying, but this is basically the "if women wanted to be programmers, they would just be programmers" argument that privilege-blind dudebros use. If you're being actively discouraged from doing a thing, you're probably not going to do the thing.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
I understand what you're saying, but this is basically the "if women wanted to be programmers, they would just be programmers" argument that privilege-blind dudebros use. If you're being actively discouraged from doing a thing, you're probably not going to do the thing.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
Guys, I get that Hasidic Judaism is problematic, but can we please stop calling them a cult in this thread?
posted by leesh at 11:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by leesh at 11:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
I understand what you're saying, but this is basically the
nope. it's not. can we please say what we mean and stop reaching for weird comparisons that don't really fit and just exist to inflame the conversation?
posted by nadawi at 11:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
nope. it's not. can we please say what we mean and stop reaching for weird comparisons that don't really fit and just exist to inflame the conversation?
posted by nadawi at 11:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, I wonder how manly I would have to be before I'd be banned.
it's my impression that this is set by the laws of new york, not the community seeking the accommodation.
posted by nadawi at 11:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
it's my impression that this is set by the laws of new york, not the community seeking the accommodation.
posted by nadawi at 11:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
"Is this a barely-cloaked accusation of antisemitism or is this an effort to pretend that the religious are part of a subaltern class in society which must be protected from the dominant secular class?"Openly defending the idea that an entire class of people should be punished for their values by being removed from public accommodations, and casting aside the certainly debatable question of whether this is a reasonable accommodation like it was some kind of flaccid fig leaf, is certainly something. If Melismata comes back to the thread to defend themself presumably they'll make it plain in the first few words whether this bigotry was motivated by antisemitism, a more general opposition to alternatives to WASP norms, some poorly thought out desire to stick it to man while hitting its usual target, or some other inexcusable bullshit - but we can still call it bigotry because thats what it is.
posted by Blasdelb at 11:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Melismata: And those beliefs include seeing women as second-class citizens. Women are segregated because they are dangerous sexual creatures who could, OMG, actually tempt men. So we must protect the women.
This is sort of simplistic. It's not exactly about protecting women. That is probably part of their rationalization but it's definitely not all of it. And one of the parts you're leaving out strikes me as important. I have no love for the Hasidic community. I don't have any patience for their bigotry, homophobia or extremism. But I do have difficulty being against this, because Hasidic women have apparently asked for it. And I think ignoring women's wishes about safe spaces is not a good thing to do to on principle.
Which raises the question: why would they ask? Men and women in ultra Orthodox cultures are raised with a very strong indoctrination of tzniut, which means that they are not supposed to dress in a manner which attracts attention from members of the opposite sex. When you're raised in such an environment, it can become uncomfortable to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin -- it may feel inappropriate or embarrassing. There's some truth in what you're saying. It's a sexist environment and the discomfort arises from a sexist attitude. Men and women are raised and taught that dressing a particular way is immodest, and very often also taught that their bodies are something to be ashamed of, or worse, women may be taught by implication that their bodies are their (future or current) husband's property. A severe lack of outside education and influences reinforces those messages. So does peer pressure from the rest of the Hasidic community.
But the practical upshot of this is that some Orthodox Jewish women are going to feel uncomfortable being seen by men in normal swimwear at a pool. (This isn't unusual, by the way. We can literally find sites selling all kinds of "modest clothing" online including swimwear.) Should their feelings be ignored or accommodated?
posted by zarq at 11:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is sort of simplistic. It's not exactly about protecting women. That is probably part of their rationalization but it's definitely not all of it. And one of the parts you're leaving out strikes me as important. I have no love for the Hasidic community. I don't have any patience for their bigotry, homophobia or extremism. But I do have difficulty being against this, because Hasidic women have apparently asked for it. And I think ignoring women's wishes about safe spaces is not a good thing to do to on principle.
Which raises the question: why would they ask? Men and women in ultra Orthodox cultures are raised with a very strong indoctrination of tzniut, which means that they are not supposed to dress in a manner which attracts attention from members of the opposite sex. When you're raised in such an environment, it can become uncomfortable to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin -- it may feel inappropriate or embarrassing. There's some truth in what you're saying. It's a sexist environment and the discomfort arises from a sexist attitude. Men and women are raised and taught that dressing a particular way is immodest, and very often also taught that their bodies are something to be ashamed of, or worse, women may be taught by implication that their bodies are their (future or current) husband's property. A severe lack of outside education and influences reinforces those messages. So does peer pressure from the rest of the Hasidic community.
But the practical upshot of this is that some Orthodox Jewish women are going to feel uncomfortable being seen by men in normal swimwear at a pool. (This isn't unusual, by the way. We can literally find sites selling all kinds of "modest clothing" online including swimwear.) Should their feelings be ignored or accommodated?
posted by zarq at 11:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Honestly, as the person you said it to (who is also a programmer!), it kind of is. In fact, given two choices, even the bro-iest of bro confs is less uncomfortable than the women's hours at that pool. (That particular pool! Other women's hours are probably different!)
posted by dame at 11:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dame at 11:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
can we please say what we mean and stop reaching for weird comparisons that don't really fit
I sincerely thought the comparison fit. I'm not trying to inflame anything. This sounds like a group that's been historically dominant in the neighborhood using intimidation to keep outsiders out of a space they want for their own.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I sincerely thought the comparison fit. I'm not trying to inflame anything. This sounds like a group that's been historically dominant in the neighborhood using intimidation to keep outsiders out of a space they want for their own.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:54 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
if anyone wants to throw charges at me being a privilege blind sexist, they're welcome to do it i suppose, but i'm still going to say it's a dumb comparison.
posted by nadawi at 11:55 AM on June 3, 2016
posted by nadawi at 11:55 AM on June 3, 2016
Dame, I'm really curious -- how is it made uncomfortable? (I'm not debating that it is -- I absolutely believe you -- I just don't know what to imagine you're describing.)
posted by jeather at 11:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jeather at 11:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments removed; this conversation's been bumpy so far as it is, and neither insisting on the "yeah but they're a cult" line of argument or reaching for new strained analogies or what ifs is going to help it go better. I have serious reservations about the capacity for this to even go well at all at this point but if folks are interested in the discussion for its own sake rather than in just GRARing at each other or absent third parties then please help me and each other out by making more of an effort there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:58 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:58 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, hi, I have swam at this pool during women-only times! They really are Hasidim-only times, based on the rudeness with which I was treated by other swimmers — way over the normal level of people who are not great with lap-area vs fun-area.
Thanks so much for commenting dame.
I'm curious about how they're rude to you. Not that I don't believe it, I totally believe you. I'm just used to pools where no one ever talks to one another during lap swims so I just want more insight into the dynamic here - if that's OK with you. Are they basically sizing you up and saying "hasidim or gtfo?"
(on preview, basically me too to what jeather asked)
Having swum laps in many pools there's certainly a whole microcosm of passive-aggressive ways for pool patrons to interact because pools are rarely big enough and people swim weirdly.
posted by GuyZero at 11:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks so much for commenting dame.
I'm curious about how they're rude to you. Not that I don't believe it, I totally believe you. I'm just used to pools where no one ever talks to one another during lap swims so I just want more insight into the dynamic here - if that's OK with you. Are they basically sizing you up and saying "hasidim or gtfo?"
(on preview, basically me too to what jeather asked)
Having swum laps in many pools there's certainly a whole microcosm of passive-aggressive ways for pool patrons to interact because pools are rarely big enough and people swim weirdly.
posted by GuyZero at 11:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
So why aren't there men only hours? (That is not a snark. That is a serious question. When do the hasidic, muslim, and evangelical men get to swim?)
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
if anyone wants to throw charges at me being a privilege blind sexist
Not my intention at all, and I apologize if it came across that way. Possibly not the best choice of words to lead in. But, to me, the suggestion that more people need to put themselves into this hostile environment to fix it is not entirely reasonable.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not my intention at all, and I apologize if it came across that way. Possibly not the best choice of words to lead in. But, to me, the suggestion that more people need to put themselves into this hostile environment to fix it is not entirely reasonable.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
internet fraud detective squad, station number 9: "I mean, I wonder how manly I would have to be before I'd be banned. Kinda manly? Intersex? Moderately manly? Top surgery? Butch haircut? Anyone know?The Hasidim don't get to police who enters the pool any more than you do. The City of New York guarantees people access to single-sex facilities consistent with their gender identity at city facilities, including offices, pools and recreation centers, without the need to show identification or any other proof of gender.
Anyone want to tell me it's actually fair for me to have to sit here and gender-police myself because I want to use a public facility?"
posted by Blasdelb at 12:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
So why aren't there men only hours? (That is not a snark. That is a serious question. When do the hasidic, muslim, and evangelical men get to swim?)
The women-only hours are less than 8 hours out of the week, so the answer is "all the other times". The men who attend that pool don't seem to need or want men-only hours.
posted by Etrigan at 12:02 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The women-only hours are less than 8 hours out of the week, so the answer is "all the other times". The men who attend that pool don't seem to need or want men-only hours.
posted by Etrigan at 12:02 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
the suggestion that more people need to put themselves into this hostile environment to fix it is not entirely reasonable.
it is completely separate of whether or not legally the accommodation should exist though, which was my point. the right to not encounter rudeness isn't something that can be legislated in that way. so if the accommodation is reasonable and there's a rudeness issue, then a solution to that is for the women in the broader community to use the pool as well during the women-only times. i don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that.
posted by nadawi at 12:03 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
it is completely separate of whether or not legally the accommodation should exist though, which was my point. the right to not encounter rudeness isn't something that can be legislated in that way. so if the accommodation is reasonable and there's a rudeness issue, then a solution to that is for the women in the broader community to use the pool as well during the women-only times. i don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that.
posted by nadawi at 12:03 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The women-only hours are less than 8 hours out of the week, so the answer is "all the other times".
Hasidim, muslim and evangelical men could not swim during those hours, unless by some wierd coincidence women never go to them. So the answer is not "all the other times." And i guessed they're not requesting them, but I'm curious as to why not. Do they just not like swimming or is swimming somehow associated with being a woman thing in hasidic culture (unclear there are that many muslims or evangelicals in this community...I know swimming isn't a woman thing in evangelical culture...not sure about muslims)?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:06 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hasidim, muslim and evangelical men could not swim during those hours, unless by some wierd coincidence women never go to them. So the answer is not "all the other times." And i guessed they're not requesting them, but I'm curious as to why not. Do they just not like swimming or is swimming somehow associated with being a woman thing in hasidic culture (unclear there are that many muslims or evangelicals in this community...I know swimming isn't a woman thing in evangelical culture...not sure about muslims)?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:06 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the pool — basically all the worst kind of passive aggressive lap swimming stuff: pushing off in front of you, jumping in front of you, not moving from the wall when you need to turn, etc., plus being kicked underwater, multiple times by multiple different people. In the locker room — cutting for the shower as though I wasn't waiting and staring, mostly. I've swam at other times, so I know it isn't just that the pool has a culture of chaos. And you know, it's possible other people found it calming and wonderful (and I am not sure how much being black would have to do with it either), but it was super uncomfortable so I stopped swimming them after a few tries, because who has time for that kind of shit?
posted by dame at 12:07 PM on June 3, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by dame at 12:07 PM on June 3, 2016 [25 favorites]
Hasidim, muslim and evangelical men could not swim during those hours
Let's not cast all Muslims and evangelicals in the same mold here. Some of those groups probably don't like the idea of men and women swimming together. Doesn't mean all of them do.
And as for why the men in that area aren't asking for men-only hours, FTFA:
Let's not cast all Muslims and evangelicals in the same mold here. Some of those groups probably don't like the idea of men and women swimming together. Doesn't mean all of them do.
And as for why the men in that area aren't asking for men-only hours, FTFA:
Limiting their pool access would be more damaging than if men could not go to the pool, Rabbi Niederman added, calling men in the Hasidic community "much more active.... They go, they walk, they go to work. They're all day outside. Women are more homebound."posted by Etrigan at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
In the pool — basically all the worst kind of passive aggressive lap swimming stuff
that sucks.
because who has time for that kind of shit?
no kidding.
posted by GuyZero at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2016
that sucks.
because who has time for that kind of shit?
no kidding.
posted by GuyZero at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2016
In answer to the question about why men don't request separate hours; I'm not entirely sure, but I think it's because in the culture, men already have communal bathing in the mikvah, but women don't. (Long, complicated reasons about when and why they each use the mikvah.) So perhaps they just see it as redundant.
posted by Melismata at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2016
posted by Melismata at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2016
it is completely separate of whether or not legally the accommodation should exist though, which was my point. the right to not encounter rudeness isn't something that can be legislated in that way. so if the accommodation is reasonable and there's a rudeness issue, then a solution to that is for the women in the broader community to use the pool as well during the women-only times. i don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that.
So is it right to make a reasonable accomodation which will in effect create a state-sanctioned public space which is de facto hostile to everybody except members of a particular religion? Does that remain reasonable?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
So is it right to make a reasonable accomodation which will in effect create a state-sanctioned public space which is de facto hostile to everybody except members of a particular religion? Does that remain reasonable?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
i don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that.
No, but probably unreasonable to expect it to happen. Some people have the guts for that. Most don't. I don't disagree with the accommodation, I just think that there's so much neighborhood culture war stuff bundled with it that ... what can you do to fix it? I don't know.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016
No, but probably unreasonable to expect it to happen. Some people have the guts for that. Most don't. I don't disagree with the accommodation, I just think that there's so much neighborhood culture war stuff bundled with it that ... what can you do to fix it? I don't know.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016
So is it right to make a reasonable accomodation which will in effect create a state-sanctioned public space which is de facto hostile to everybody except members of a particular religion? Does that remain reasonable?
That's like half of Utah.
posted by GuyZero at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's like half of Utah.
posted by GuyZero at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
So is it right to make a reasonable accomodation which will in effect create a state-sanctioned public space which is de facto hostile to everybody except members of a particular religion? Does that remain reasonable?
The fact that some women are shitty to other women during these hours should be considered a separate issue from whether women-only hours are reasonable.
posted by Etrigan at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
The fact that some women are shitty to other women during these hours should be considered a separate issue from whether women-only hours are reasonable.
posted by Etrigan at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
which will in effect create a state-sanctioned public space which is de facto hostile to everybody except members of a particular religion
as a queer atheist living in the southern united states, we don't seem to have an issue with this when we're discussing the dominate religion of our nation.
posted by nadawi at 12:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
as a queer atheist living in the southern united states, we don't seem to have an issue with this when we're discussing the dominate religion of our nation.
posted by nadawi at 12:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
In the pool — basically all the worst kind of passive aggressive lap swimming stuff: pushing off in front of you, jumping in front of you, not moving from the wall when you need to turn, etc., plus being kicked underwater, multiple times by multiple different people. In the locker room — cutting for the shower as though I wasn't waiting and staring, mostly. I've swam at other times, so I know it isn't just that the pool has a culture of chaos. And you know, it's possible other people found it calming and wonderful (and I am not sure how much being black would have to do with it either), but it was super uncomfortable so I stopped swimming them after a few tries, because who has time for that kind of shit?
Oof, this is really dispiriting to hear, because the de-facto discrimination and appropriation of secular, public accommodations for exclusionary in-group usage has been an unfortunate pattern for the Brooklyn Hasidim (the bussing issues, bike lanes, the endemic modesty policing in public neighborhood venues).
posted by Chrischris at 12:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
Oof, this is really dispiriting to hear, because the de-facto discrimination and appropriation of secular, public accommodations for exclusionary in-group usage has been an unfortunate pattern for the Brooklyn Hasidim (the bussing issues, bike lanes, the endemic modesty policing in public neighborhood venues).
posted by Chrischris at 12:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
I think women-only hours are reasonable. I don't think women-only hours engineered to create a private enclosure of public resources for the members of a particular group actually qualify as women-only hours in any meaningful way.
as a queer atheist living in the southern united states, we don't seem to have an issue with this when we're discussing the dominate religion of our nation.
I agree! Let's have a thread also about the extent to which large swathes of the US are effectively Christian theocracies.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:18 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
as a queer atheist living in the southern united states, we don't seem to have an issue with this when we're discussing the dominate religion of our nation.
I agree! Let's have a thread also about the extent to which large swathes of the US are effectively Christian theocracies.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:18 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Hasidim, muslim and evangelical men could not swim during those hours, unless by some wierd coincidence women never go to them."This is something worth being super careful about, I don't know about Hasidim, but most Muslim and Evangelical men would have absolutely no problem with this. There is a big problem with minority religions like Islam and capital E Evangelicalism being reduced to their most visible members that isn't healthy for anyone.
posted by Blasdelb at 12:19 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
(the bussing issues, bike lanes, the endemic modesty policing in public neighborhood venues).
The NYC marathon runs through the Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn (because that's where the founder of New York Road Runners was from), and it's always a bit strange to have the spectators stop cheering and start glaring at you.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:19 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
The NYC marathon runs through the Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn (because that's where the founder of New York Road Runners was from), and it's always a bit strange to have the spectators stop cheering and start glaring at you.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:19 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm inclined to ease back on my own personal feelings about this perfect storm of a problem, and instead ask: is this constitutionally permitted? Is there a violation of the First Amendment or Equal Protection Clause here based on religion and/or gender? Might as well approach it like a bar exam question!
The analysis, to my best ability, goes something like:
1. Free Exercise Clause - no government laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There's a state action here, and the state can't punish on the basis of religious beliefs. Here, the women's-only hours are a neutral law of general applicability, with respect to religion. They're not "Hasidic-only hours" or "Muslim-only hours" etc. They're not enacted to discriminate based on religion, either. The intent is to provide a reasonable accomodation for all members of the community to use the swimming pool, not to promote one religion over another.
2. Establishment Clause - the government is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. We use the Lemon Test: the law must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) have an effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and 3) not involve excessive entanglement with religion. There's a secular purpose of providing accomodation for everyone in the community; the effect does not advance or inhibit religion, because it does not endorse any religion or discourage any religion - it's religion-neutral in effect. Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc. can take advantage of the hours for their own reasons just as Hasidic women can. There's also no entanglement with religious organizations I'm aware of.
3. Equal Protection - is this discriminatory based on gender? Gender is a protected class, and discrimination requires intermediate scrutiny if it's discriminatory on its face, or has a discriminatory impact and intent. Here, it's discriminatory on its face ("women only hours"), so intermediate scrutiny is the standard: the law must be substantially related to an important government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve the objective. Here, it's an important government interest to provide reasonable accomodation to all members of the community that the pool is designed to serve. Providing women-only hours is also the most logical way to achieve this objective - Hasidic women won't use the swimming pool if men are present, so providing a few designated hours where men are not present is a narrowly tailored solution to the objective. They're not overstepping their bounds by providing entire days or weeks - it's quite reasonable (Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:15 a.m. to 11 a.m., and Sundays from 2:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.) The hours would also be unconstitutional if they perpetuate role stereotypes of women - but that is not happening here on the face of the law. There are no stereotypes of women that are being perpetuated by women-only hours. You could get into criticisms of the religion's views on men and women, but that's really outside the constitutional scope and isn't being addressed by the hours or by the state, which do not endorse any particular view.
So having gone through the analysis, I'm not seeing any real problem from a constitutional standpoint. One could argue a few of my conclusions, but this really doesn't appear to promote or discourage any religious belief, or have a problem in terms of harmful gender discrimination. The law has dealt with problems like this in the past and has developed these granular tests for these exact purposes, so it's my most objective way of handling the issue without getting into personal activist ideology.
posted by naju at 12:21 PM on June 3, 2016 [22 favorites]
The analysis, to my best ability, goes something like:
1. Free Exercise Clause - no government laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There's a state action here, and the state can't punish on the basis of religious beliefs. Here, the women's-only hours are a neutral law of general applicability, with respect to religion. They're not "Hasidic-only hours" or "Muslim-only hours" etc. They're not enacted to discriminate based on religion, either. The intent is to provide a reasonable accomodation for all members of the community to use the swimming pool, not to promote one religion over another.
2. Establishment Clause - the government is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. We use the Lemon Test: the law must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) have an effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and 3) not involve excessive entanglement with religion. There's a secular purpose of providing accomodation for everyone in the community; the effect does not advance or inhibit religion, because it does not endorse any religion or discourage any religion - it's religion-neutral in effect. Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc. can take advantage of the hours for their own reasons just as Hasidic women can. There's also no entanglement with religious organizations I'm aware of.
3. Equal Protection - is this discriminatory based on gender? Gender is a protected class, and discrimination requires intermediate scrutiny if it's discriminatory on its face, or has a discriminatory impact and intent. Here, it's discriminatory on its face ("women only hours"), so intermediate scrutiny is the standard: the law must be substantially related to an important government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve the objective. Here, it's an important government interest to provide reasonable accomodation to all members of the community that the pool is designed to serve. Providing women-only hours is also the most logical way to achieve this objective - Hasidic women won't use the swimming pool if men are present, so providing a few designated hours where men are not present is a narrowly tailored solution to the objective. They're not overstepping their bounds by providing entire days or weeks - it's quite reasonable (Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:15 a.m. to 11 a.m., and Sundays from 2:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.) The hours would also be unconstitutional if they perpetuate role stereotypes of women - but that is not happening here on the face of the law. There are no stereotypes of women that are being perpetuated by women-only hours. You could get into criticisms of the religion's views on men and women, but that's really outside the constitutional scope and isn't being addressed by the hours or by the state, which do not endorse any particular view.
So having gone through the analysis, I'm not seeing any real problem from a constitutional standpoint. One could argue a few of my conclusions, but this really doesn't appear to promote or discourage any religious belief, or have a problem in terms of harmful gender discrimination. The law has dealt with problems like this in the past and has developed these granular tests for these exact purposes, so it's my most objective way of handling the issue without getting into personal activist ideology.
posted by naju at 12:21 PM on June 3, 2016 [22 favorites]
I think there is a meaningful difference between (i) policies motivated by a desire to punish people for their values or identity (such as a policy explicitly forbidding members of one race or religion from using the pool) and (ii) policies that are neutral and nondiscriminatory in intent but that have the effect of making public accommodations less available to people with certain beliefs. Policies in the first category should always be overturned, but not necessarily policies in the second category.
To me, the policy of "anyone can use the pool when it's open" clearly falls into the second category. I don't think there's any evidence that this policy was enacted out of a desire to punish Hasidic women. That isn't to say that the pool should not consider revising the policy to accommodate women who, for whatever reason, do not feel safe or comfortable swimming when men are present (or who simply prefer to swim when men are not present). But figuring out whether to revise the policy is kind of a thick problem, requiring consideration of the balance of interests between those requesting the accommodation and the members of the community who might be harmed by it, and whether the requested accommodation can be provided consistent with other values.
Here, it's not clear to me where the balance lies. I'm OK with a rule saying "women only at certain times" so long as those times did not unduly inconvenience other members of the community and so long as all women (including trans women) were allowed. I would certainly not be for the pool setting up a rule saying "Hasidic women only at these times." If most Hasidic women would not use the pool unless certain other categories of women were excluded (not saying this is the case, speaking hypothetically), then for me, the value of holding to antidiscrimination principles would outweigh the value of making an accommodation for the Hasidic women.
posted by burden at 12:22 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
To me, the policy of "anyone can use the pool when it's open" clearly falls into the second category. I don't think there's any evidence that this policy was enacted out of a desire to punish Hasidic women. That isn't to say that the pool should not consider revising the policy to accommodate women who, for whatever reason, do not feel safe or comfortable swimming when men are present (or who simply prefer to swim when men are not present). But figuring out whether to revise the policy is kind of a thick problem, requiring consideration of the balance of interests between those requesting the accommodation and the members of the community who might be harmed by it, and whether the requested accommodation can be provided consistent with other values.
Here, it's not clear to me where the balance lies. I'm OK with a rule saying "women only at certain times" so long as those times did not unduly inconvenience other members of the community and so long as all women (including trans women) were allowed. I would certainly not be for the pool setting up a rule saying "Hasidic women only at these times." If most Hasidic women would not use the pool unless certain other categories of women were excluded (not saying this is the case, speaking hypothetically), then for me, the value of holding to antidiscrimination principles would outweigh the value of making an accommodation for the Hasidic women.
posted by burden at 12:22 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
the pool has served as a safe space in the city to park you children
it's literally illegal to abandon minor children whether you do it in a forest at night or at a NYC public pool.
Bolded for fucking truth.
Please discard the argument that public facilities should serve as convenient drop-off corrals for children, and focus your efforts on providing more free and subsidized professional supervised childcare options for all the public, so impoverished parents aren't forced into the asshole move of dumping childcare duty onto the city pool.
Public employees like lifeguards and librarians are not your goddamn free babysitters. It's obnoxious enough for the employees when libraries need to debate whether it's worth calling CPS about the free-range kids who are daily dropped off to wander the stacks. I'm hitting flames-on-the-side-of-my-face rage levels at the suggestion that it's acceptable to shrug childcare responsibility off onto lifeguards in a setting where unattended children can LITERALLY DROWN.
posted by nicebookrack at 12:22 PM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
it's literally illegal to abandon minor children whether you do it in a forest at night or at a NYC public pool.
Bolded for fucking truth.
Please discard the argument that public facilities should serve as convenient drop-off corrals for children, and focus your efforts on providing more free and subsidized professional supervised childcare options for all the public, so impoverished parents aren't forced into the asshole move of dumping childcare duty onto the city pool.
Public employees like lifeguards and librarians are not your goddamn free babysitters. It's obnoxious enough for the employees when libraries need to debate whether it's worth calling CPS about the free-range kids who are daily dropped off to wander the stacks. I'm hitting flames-on-the-side-of-my-face rage levels at the suggestion that it's acceptable to shrug childcare responsibility off onto lifeguards in a setting where unattended children can LITERALLY DROWN.
posted by nicebookrack at 12:22 PM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
Are any of those things issues that lifeguards would be expected to deal with, or is it all the kind of invisible crap you can't prove? (Not doubting, I just don't know enough about how it works.) Is this the kind of thing you can reasonably complain about to management (even though you might decide it isn't worth your time to do so, which is a fair decision)?
posted by jeather at 12:22 PM on June 3, 2016
posted by jeather at 12:22 PM on June 3, 2016
The fact that some women are shitty to other women during these hours should be considered a separate issue from whether women-only hours are reasonable.
If women-only hours are becoming a space that is hostile to minorities (which non-hasidic women apparently are, in this situation) the onus is on the authorities to police those times more heavily in order to make sure that they are not inadvertently creating a Hasidim-only space.
Much of the stuff that dame described is the kind of thing that can be kept under control by better supervision, and perhaps the assumption that "we are all adults and should be treated as such" needs to be suspended in order to make the women's time safe. It sounds like, in order to do that, the powers-that-be at this pool would need to have more lifeguard staff (to police things like pushing off or jumping in in front of swimmers and other pool ettiquette stuff), more security staff (to police against assaults like being kicked underwater), and locker room monitoring staff (to ensure that these child-humans can respectfully allow all women to share the facilities).
I can totally understand why the pool powers-that-be might choose to abolish women's-only time as opposed to take the steps needed to make it safe. And if they did, that wouldn't an example of "secular" culture being oppressive.
Thank you for commenting dame, I'm sorry you were treated so shittily.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:24 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
If women-only hours are becoming a space that is hostile to minorities (which non-hasidic women apparently are, in this situation) the onus is on the authorities to police those times more heavily in order to make sure that they are not inadvertently creating a Hasidim-only space.
Much of the stuff that dame described is the kind of thing that can be kept under control by better supervision, and perhaps the assumption that "we are all adults and should be treated as such" needs to be suspended in order to make the women's time safe. It sounds like, in order to do that, the powers-that-be at this pool would need to have more lifeguard staff (to police things like pushing off or jumping in in front of swimmers and other pool ettiquette stuff), more security staff (to police against assaults like being kicked underwater), and locker room monitoring staff (to ensure that these child-humans can respectfully allow all women to share the facilities).
I can totally understand why the pool powers-that-be might choose to abolish women's-only time as opposed to take the steps needed to make it safe. And if they did, that wouldn't an example of "secular" culture being oppressive.
Thank you for commenting dame, I'm sorry you were treated so shittily.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:24 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
There's no NY state law on who is a woman or a man, AFAIK.
There is. Read the thread.
I mean, I wonder how manly I would have to be before I'd be banned. Kinda manly? Intersex? Moderately manly? Top surgery? Butch haircut? Anyone know?
Please stop using outrage in our behalf as a political lever.
Faithfully,
- a trans woman.
posted by Dysk at 12:29 PM on June 3, 2016 [20 favorites]
There is. Read the thread.
I mean, I wonder how manly I would have to be before I'd be banned. Kinda manly? Intersex? Moderately manly? Top surgery? Butch haircut? Anyone know?
Please stop using outrage in our behalf as a political lever.
Faithfully,
- a trans woman.
posted by Dysk at 12:29 PM on June 3, 2016 [20 favorites]
The in-pool things, yes, in theory the guards could/should tell people to stop being jerks and throw them out if they do not. I have swam places where this was the culture and I prefer that. Some places do not, and in general at that pool, they do not. It is less an issue at other times because a lot of lap swimmers are the anal sort that pride themselves on swimming well together and following The Rules (I include myself in this!)
But, I want to be clear that I am telling about my experience at this pool to share the underlying conflicts that are part of this, and not advocating that women's hours are bad, that women's hours are great, that Hasidim are evil, etc. I am honestly torn about a general, platonic women's hours kind of thing, in particular since being a woman means I can swim whenever. In this case, Williamsburg is growing rapidly population-wise, a lot of the people moving in to the new towers have children and likely want more access to the pool, the Hasidim — never the friendliest — probably feel squeezed and overrun, which certainly doesn't encourage the best in people. So it is a mess, but a particular one.
posted by dame at 12:30 PM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
But, I want to be clear that I am telling about my experience at this pool to share the underlying conflicts that are part of this, and not advocating that women's hours are bad, that women's hours are great, that Hasidim are evil, etc. I am honestly torn about a general, platonic women's hours kind of thing, in particular since being a woman means I can swim whenever. In this case, Williamsburg is growing rapidly population-wise, a lot of the people moving in to the new towers have children and likely want more access to the pool, the Hasidim — never the friendliest — probably feel squeezed and overrun, which certainly doesn't encourage the best in people. So it is a mess, but a particular one.
posted by dame at 12:30 PM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
From a link upthread:
The NYCHRL requires that individuals be permitted to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on their identification. The law does not require entities to make existing bathrooms all-gender or construct additional restrooms. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 12posted by Krom Tatman at 12:31 PM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
Some people, including, for example, customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender or gender non-conforming individual.
Examples of Violations
a. Prohibiting an individual from using a particular program or facility because they do not conform to sex stereotypes. For example, a women’s shelter may not turn away a woman because she looks too masculine nor may a men’s shelter deny service to a man because he does not look masculine enough.
b. Prohibiting a transgender or gender non-conforming person from using the single-sex program or facility consistent with their gender identity or expression. For example, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to prohibit a transgender woman from using the women’s bathroom.
c. Requiring a transgender or gender non-conforming individual to provide proof of their gender in order to access the appropriate single-sex program or facility.
d. Requiring an individual to provide identification with a particular sex or gender marker in order to access the single-sex program or facility corresponding to their gender.
e. Barring someone from a program or facility out of concern that a transgender or gender non-conforming person will make others uncomfortable.
internet fraud detective squad, station number 9: "There's no NY state law on who is a woman or a man, AFAIK."As has been repeated many times in this thread you seem to not actually be reading, the City of New York guarantees people access to single-sex facilities consistent with their gender identity at city facilities, including offices, pools and recreation centers, without the need to show identification or any other proof of gender. If all the Hasidic women in New York said it was them or Dysk on women only afternoon, Dysk would get to stay and they would have to go.
posted by Blasdelb at 12:32 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is not, at all, about creating a safe space for all women.
Which is a thing that should be policed in and of itself rather than saying "Nope, women-only hours are automatically a violation of the state constitution", which is what happened in this case.
posted by Etrigan at 12:34 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Which is a thing that should be policed in and of itself rather than saying "Nope, women-only hours are automatically a violation of the state constitution", which is what happened in this case.
posted by Etrigan at 12:34 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, this is the context here. This is not, at all, about creating a safe space for all women.
They're asking that current status quo be maintained, which provides a women-only space at specific times. The most likely reason is that some women are uncomfortable using a coed pool. Uncomfortable enough that they would not otherwise use the pool.
Help me understand please? Your objection is that they're asking that the pool be maintained as a safe, women-only space, for the wrong reasons?
posted by zarq at 12:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
They're asking that current status quo be maintained, which provides a women-only space at specific times. The most likely reason is that some women are uncomfortable using a coed pool. Uncomfortable enough that they would not otherwise use the pool.
Help me understand please? Your objection is that they're asking that the pool be maintained as a safe, women-only space, for the wrong reasons?
posted by zarq at 12:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I notice that the women-only hours are M-W-F and Sunday. My Solomonic suggestion would be: Move 2 hours of women-only pool access from Sunday to Saturday. I'm sure it would be met with a certain level of outrage, but that would clearly be because of religious accommodation concerns and thus precisely moot, even as plenty of non-Shabbot time would still be available for the religiously observant to enjoy the pool.
posted by Chrischris at 12:50 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Chrischris at 12:50 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
The objection is that the Hasidim are not, in fact, asking that the pool during those hours be maintained as a safe space for all women, but rather as a space for Hasidim women- that the idea of it being for all women is a convenient cover which enlists feminist sentiment in the service of the enclosure of public space for a private (and deeply, profoundly anti-feminist) group.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:50 PM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:50 PM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
I notice that the women-only hours are M-W-F and Sunday. My Solomonic suggestion would be: Move 2 hours of women-only pool access from Sunday to Saturday. I'm sure it would be met with a certain level of outrage, but that would clearly be because of religious accommodation concerns and thus precisely moot, even as plenty of non-Shabbot time would still be available for the religiously observant to enjoy the pool.
Of course it would be met with outrage, you're talking about deliberately changing the schedule specifically to make it less accessible for a particular group. That's... pretty blatant.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:54 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Of course it would be met with outrage, you're talking about deliberately changing the schedule specifically to make it less accessible for a particular group. That's... pretty blatant.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:54 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
They're not overstepping their bounds by providing entire days or weeks - it's quite reasonable (Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:15 a.m. to 11 a.m., and Sundays from 2:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.) The hours would also be unconstitutional if they perpetuate role stereotypes of women - but that is not happening here on the face of the law. There are no stereotypes of women that are being perpetuated by women-only hours.
Thanks for your analysis, naju. Could it be argued that the bulk of the hours - mornings on work weekdays - perpetuate or encourage role stereotypes of women as homemakers and "housebound" as opposed to gainfully employed?
posted by Errant at 12:54 PM on June 3, 2016
Thanks for your analysis, naju. Could it be argued that the bulk of the hours - mornings on work weekdays - perpetuate or encourage role stereotypes of women as homemakers and "housebound" as opposed to gainfully employed?
posted by Errant at 12:54 PM on June 3, 2016
FYI, this issue is not new and has also come up in the context of Muslims around the world (with an added dose of Islamophobia and "white western feminists telling non-western communities how they should think and behave") -
France
Sweden
When 10,000+ Muslim refugees are coming into your community who can't use your public services, that's a shame. Maybe there are underlying regressive ideas, but from the government perspective, it's really about "how can we serve the community best, and get the most members of the community using our public services?"
posted by naju at 12:55 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
France
Sweden
When 10,000+ Muslim refugees are coming into your community who can't use your public services, that's a shame. Maybe there are underlying regressive ideas, but from the government perspective, it's really about "how can we serve the community best, and get the most members of the community using our public services?"
posted by naju at 12:55 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
The objection is that the Hasidim are not, in fact, asking that the pool during those hours be maintained as a safe space for all women, but rather as a space for Hasidim women
Except the end result is that all women have access. Because they can't make it Hasidic-only.
- that the idea of it being for all women is a convenient cover which enlists feminist sentiment in the service of the enclosure of public space for a private (and deeply, profoundly anti-feminist) group.
I think we all are pretty much in agreement that the Hasidim treat women very poorly. I've said as much several times upthread and I've complained about Hasidim and Hareidi Jews often enough on mefi that I sometimes feel like a broken record on the subject.
But to be perfectly honest, I don't really care why they're doing it, if the end result is that women get a space just for them at that pool for a few times each week. Keeping it seems like a clear benefit to women for me, but doesn't benefit Hasidic men directly.
posted by zarq at 1:02 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Except the end result is that all women have access. Because they can't make it Hasidic-only.
- that the idea of it being for all women is a convenient cover which enlists feminist sentiment in the service of the enclosure of public space for a private (and deeply, profoundly anti-feminist) group.
I think we all are pretty much in agreement that the Hasidim treat women very poorly. I've said as much several times upthread and I've complained about Hasidim and Hareidi Jews often enough on mefi that I sometimes feel like a broken record on the subject.
But to be perfectly honest, I don't really care why they're doing it, if the end result is that women get a space just for them at that pool for a few times each week. Keeping it seems like a clear benefit to women for me, but doesn't benefit Hasidic men directly.
posted by zarq at 1:02 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
an assumption of everyone being on a m-f 8-5 work schedule seems like it could perpetuate stereotypes as well.
posted by nadawi at 1:02 PM on June 3, 2016
posted by nadawi at 1:02 PM on June 3, 2016
Except the end result is that all women have access. Because they can't make it Hasidic-only.
Except that they can, based on the personal stories of dame and others.
posted by Melismata at 1:07 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Except that they can, based on the personal stories of dame and others.
posted by Melismata at 1:07 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
I notice that the women-only hours are M-W-F and Sunday. My Solomonic suggestion would be: Move 2 hours of women-only pool access from Sunday to Saturday. I'm sure it would be met with a certain level of outrage, but that would clearly be because of religious accommodation concerns and thus precisely moot, even as plenty of non-Shabbot time would still be available for the religiously observant to enjoy the pool.
I have no idea what the Hasidim believe, (and I'm not an expert, so take this with a grain of (kosher) salt,) but AFAIK most Jewish religious authorities don't have a problem with Jews being in a pool on Shabbat. The ones that say Jews shouldn't exercise on Shabbat (because it's considered work) would probably say no swimming, but people could likely still spend time in a pool regardless.
posted by zarq at 1:10 PM on June 3, 2016
I have no idea what the Hasidim believe, (and I'm not an expert, so take this with a grain of (kosher) salt,) but AFAIK most Jewish religious authorities don't have a problem with Jews being in a pool on Shabbat. The ones that say Jews shouldn't exercise on Shabbat (because it's considered work) would probably say no swimming, but people could likely still spend time in a pool regardless.
posted by zarq at 1:10 PM on June 3, 2016
having the pool be better monitored for rule breaking seems like a better solution to the hasidim rudeness than just whole cloth removing the accommodation.
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [24 favorites]
Except that they can, based on the personal stories of dame and others.
Those same tactics could be used to exclude men. The issue of how users may exclude each other from a service in this way is a separate issue (which should very much be addressed by tighter monitoring and policing of the actual rules under discussion).
posted by Dysk at 1:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Those same tactics could be used to exclude men. The issue of how users may exclude each other from a service in this way is a separate issue (which should very much be addressed by tighter monitoring and policing of the actual rules under discussion).
posted by Dysk at 1:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Except the end result is that all women have access. Because they can't make it Hasidic-only.
But they do, as dame discussed earlier in the thread. No, it's not something done legally, but I'm willing to bet that other women in the community "know" that those blocks of time are for Hasidic women only, despite what the pool schedule and policies might say.
And that's why the pushback occurred. This isn't about a religious community, it's about an insular, politically powerful community that has routinely been a bad neighbor wielding its leverage to use public resources for itself.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
But they do, as dame discussed earlier in the thread. No, it's not something done legally, but I'm willing to bet that other women in the community "know" that those blocks of time are for Hasidic women only, despite what the pool schedule and policies might say.
And that's why the pushback occurred. This isn't about a religious community, it's about an insular, politically powerful community that has routinely been a bad neighbor wielding its leverage to use public resources for itself.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
As one of the defenders of the Women Only hours rule, if the Hasidic women using the pool are making it defacto-Hasidm, then it's up to the pool staff to put a stop to that and make it a safe space for all women in the neighborhood, regardless of faith. I'll defend a religion's right to live in and along side a secular society by their rules, but I won't defend being jerks.
posted by SansPoint at 1:17 PM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 1:17 PM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
an accommodation that would be totally fine if it weren't for the religion of those asking for it isn't exactly an argument in favor of separation of church and state.
It is absolutely, fundamentally the case under our constitution that it can be legal for a government to take an action if it is prompted by one motive, but not legal if prompted by another. It's maybe a little less prominent in Supreme Court cases now that governments have figured out that you can't actually say you're zoning to keep the coloreds out, thus making it harder to determine the intent behind certain laws, but this concept is threaded throughout the major twentieth-century civil rights precedents. For example, the government cannot act in a certain way if its motive is to promote the establishment of religion. That's right there in the First Amendment.
Openly defending the idea that an entire class of people should be punished for their values by being removed from public accommodations
In this case, it is actually the Hasidim who are demanding that other people be removed from public accommodation. Literally, they want the city to have the power to forcibly remove men from the pool at certain hours, if necessary, because their presence would be contradictory to Hasidic beliefs. The idea that they're being excluded because they don't have the power to exclude other people is backwards.
If you believe that God is telling you to live in opposition to certain values of the broader culture, that is, actually, going to impact your ability to participate in that culture. That's the point.
posted by praemunire at 1:23 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
It is absolutely, fundamentally the case under our constitution that it can be legal for a government to take an action if it is prompted by one motive, but not legal if prompted by another. It's maybe a little less prominent in Supreme Court cases now that governments have figured out that you can't actually say you're zoning to keep the coloreds out, thus making it harder to determine the intent behind certain laws, but this concept is threaded throughout the major twentieth-century civil rights precedents. For example, the government cannot act in a certain way if its motive is to promote the establishment of religion. That's right there in the First Amendment.
Openly defending the idea that an entire class of people should be punished for their values by being removed from public accommodations
In this case, it is actually the Hasidim who are demanding that other people be removed from public accommodation. Literally, they want the city to have the power to forcibly remove men from the pool at certain hours, if necessary, because their presence would be contradictory to Hasidic beliefs. The idea that they're being excluded because they don't have the power to exclude other people is backwards.
If you believe that God is telling you to live in opposition to certain values of the broader culture, that is, actually, going to impact your ability to participate in that culture. That's the point.
posted by praemunire at 1:23 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Huh.
I'm probably wrong. Jewish laws are usually a rabbit hole of inconsistency but google turns up similar answers on the topic from different orthodox rabbis about swimming on Shabbat.
Examples:
It is permitted to dip in a pool (provided the water is not warm/hot), but one should avoid swimming.
and
Strictly speaking, it would be permissible to swim in a pool on Shabbat under certain conditions. In practice, however, the Halachic authorities forbid swimming on Shabbat due to the potential Halachic problems that arise, and because swimming is inconsistent with the sense of sanctity and reverence with which we must treat Shabbat.
posted by zarq at 1:24 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm probably wrong. Jewish laws are usually a rabbit hole of inconsistency but google turns up similar answers on the topic from different orthodox rabbis about swimming on Shabbat.
Examples:
It is permitted to dip in a pool (provided the water is not warm/hot), but one should avoid swimming.
and
Strictly speaking, it would be permissible to swim in a pool on Shabbat under certain conditions. In practice, however, the Halachic authorities forbid swimming on Shabbat due to the potential Halachic problems that arise, and because swimming is inconsistent with the sense of sanctity and reverence with which we must treat Shabbat.
posted by zarq at 1:24 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
A running theme in this thread for some commentators is that religious accommodation is abhorrent in and of itself. This ignores the indisputable fact that religious accommodation is interwoven into the very fabric of the United States since its founding, both in its founding documents and in practice. What constitutes a reasonable accommodation can sometimes be difficult and has changed over the years (in good and bad ways). However, the tension between providing accommodations and ensuring that those accommodations are reasonable and don't overly impinge other rights ensures that there is a constant need to find creative compromise. Bright line rules are great when they work because they provide clarity, but don't make sense when the issues are by their very nature entirely contextual along multiple vectors (local community norms, broader national norms, constitutional/legal requirements, local demographics, etc.).
posted by Falconetti at 1:25 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Falconetti at 1:25 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Falconetti This is exactly why I don't have a problem with Women-Only hours as a solution to the problem of Hasidic women demanding pool access. Assuming they're okay sharing with non-Hasidic women (which is, apparently, not the case, but that's a different issue), it addresses the problem with a minimum of inconvenience to everyone else.
When the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the US, the ruling even included an exemption for religious organizations that didn't want to perform gay marriages. Fine with me. As long as the government, legal institution of marriage is open to same sex couples, if various religions want to be sticks in the mud, there's still options for other couples. Which is also how I can be for women's only swimming hours to make the Hasidic community happy, and against the bigotry of Kim Davis.
posted by SansPoint at 1:31 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
When the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the US, the ruling even included an exemption for religious organizations that didn't want to perform gay marriages. Fine with me. As long as the government, legal institution of marriage is open to same sex couples, if various religions want to be sticks in the mud, there's still options for other couples. Which is also how I can be for women's only swimming hours to make the Hasidic community happy, and against the bigotry of Kim Davis.
posted by SansPoint at 1:31 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
But to be perfectly honest, I don't really care why they're doing it, if the end result is that women get a space just for them at that pool for a few times each week.
You should care, because the underlying debate over principle is very much live. What's next? Segregated public buses (already discussed)? Segregated public schools? Segregated places of work? Mandatory "modest" clothing for women in public, including sheitels, so that Hasidic men are not drawn to sin in their hearts? These are real questions, based on what has happened elsewhere, not some silly theoretical reductio ad absurdum. Do you want East Williamsburg to look, when it comes to gender relations, like the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods of Israel, under penalty of law enforced by New York City and state government? What values Hasidic women value and obey in their private lives, of their own accord, is absolutely up to them, but when you get the state involved, it's another matter.
I don't find the idea of women-only swim hours a terrible one in itself. I get why people like the idea for entirely non-religious reasons. But, when the pool is public, the motive really, really matters.
posted by praemunire at 1:33 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
You should care, because the underlying debate over principle is very much live. What's next? Segregated public buses (already discussed)? Segregated public schools? Segregated places of work? Mandatory "modest" clothing for women in public, including sheitels, so that Hasidic men are not drawn to sin in their hearts? These are real questions, based on what has happened elsewhere, not some silly theoretical reductio ad absurdum. Do you want East Williamsburg to look, when it comes to gender relations, like the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods of Israel, under penalty of law enforced by New York City and state government? What values Hasidic women value and obey in their private lives, of their own accord, is absolutely up to them, but when you get the state involved, it's another matter.
I don't find the idea of women-only swim hours a terrible one in itself. I get why people like the idea for entirely non-religious reasons. But, when the pool is public, the motive really, really matters.
posted by praemunire at 1:33 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
praemunire: I'm not buying the slippery slope argument here. You can support letting the Hasidic women go swimming, and still draw the line of compromise well before segregated busses (which is a problem), let along mandatory modest clothing (which is as likely to happen as Dr. Stein endorsing Donald Trump).
posted by SansPoint at 1:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 1:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I get why people like the idea for entirely non-religious reasons. But, when the pool is public, the motive really, really matters.
So you can respect a secular reason but not a religious one?
posted by IndigoJones at 1:36 PM on June 3, 2016
So you can respect a secular reason but not a religious one?
posted by IndigoJones at 1:36 PM on June 3, 2016
Except that those lines are already not being drawn, by politicians who want their bloc votes. There's a sign in Kiryas Joel, on a public sidewalk, telling women to dress modestly.
posted by Melismata at 1:37 PM on June 3, 2016
posted by Melismata at 1:37 PM on June 3, 2016
Whenever anyone goes into "what's next?" slippery slope territory, be wary. Also whenever anyone goes into "do you want our utopia to be MANDATORY SHARIA LAW" type arguments, be wary.
posted by naju at 1:37 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by naju at 1:37 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Melismata Kiryas Joel is not Brooklyn. Kiryas Joel has plenty of problems, but this is out of scope.
posted by SansPoint at 1:38 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by SansPoint at 1:38 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There has to be a distinction drawn between "the principle that you are proposing we act on would also demand this other action, which is not good" and the slippery slope. That a slope is proposed to exist is not in and of itself a fallacy- the fallacy is in depicting the existence of such a slope on nonsensical grounds, or using faulty logic. "You are arguing that acting on a particular principle I am advocating that we act on would lead us to do things I wouldn't like" isn't pointing out a fallacy, it's rejecting the notion of principles altogether.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:43 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:43 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Huh? You just got finished saying that we should draw a line stating that mandatory modest clothing is not ok. But only in Brooklyn? Are the people in KJ different somehow?
I really don't want to argue here. I think we're mostly on the same side. But I do think that asking "what's next?" is a valid thing to do, given the history of the group involved.
posted by Melismata at 1:43 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really don't want to argue here. I think we're mostly on the same side. But I do think that asking "what's next?" is a valid thing to do, given the history of the group involved.
posted by Melismata at 1:43 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
A sign on the sidewalk is not the same as the government mandating religious modesty standards. This is silly.
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:45 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:45 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Melismata Kiryas Joel is a city run by the Ultra-Orthodox. Williamsburg, Brooklyn is a neighborhood with a large Hasidic population, but still under the auspices of the largely secular government of New York City. There's a huge difference between the two, and as Krom Tatman pointed out, there's a huge difference between a sidewalk sign and a government mandate. If a city council member introduces legislation demanding women dress modestly in Brooklyn, then I'll worry.
posted by SansPoint at 1:47 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 1:47 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not buying the slippery slope argument here
Why not? I mean, this is not my weird paranoid fantasy. Segregated buses have already been an issue, as discussed elsewhere on this thread. If you read my link on the East Ramapo schools, you'll see that schools segregated by religion (and thus by gender) have definitely been a goal of some Hasidim. Modesty enforcement, including via breaking and entering, occurs in this neighborhood. If you look at other communities dominated by people of similar beliefs, such gender-segregation does occur. (Of almost any type of extreme enough fundamentalist belief, really. I want to stress again that I don't think this is an issue peculiar to any particular sect of Judaism or Judaism generally.)
I mean, there is an actual, meaningful principle involved here. We don't think it's a good idea generally for the state to enforce religious beliefs or to favor one religious group over another or over the nonreligious, because much of the last 500 years of European history has shown what carnage that can cause.
posted by praemunire at 1:48 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why not? I mean, this is not my weird paranoid fantasy. Segregated buses have already been an issue, as discussed elsewhere on this thread. If you read my link on the East Ramapo schools, you'll see that schools segregated by religion (and thus by gender) have definitely been a goal of some Hasidim. Modesty enforcement, including via breaking and entering, occurs in this neighborhood. If you look at other communities dominated by people of similar beliefs, such gender-segregation does occur. (Of almost any type of extreme enough fundamentalist belief, really. I want to stress again that I don't think this is an issue peculiar to any particular sect of Judaism or Judaism generally.)
I mean, there is an actual, meaningful principle involved here. We don't think it's a good idea generally for the state to enforce religious beliefs or to favor one religious group over another or over the nonreligious, because much of the last 500 years of European history has shown what carnage that can cause.
posted by praemunire at 1:48 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is about a pool being used for a few hours a week.
posted by agregoli at 1:51 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 1:51 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
"They want to impose their values upon the rest of the world and will stop at nothing to change YOUR precious secular way of life" is not an okay line of reasoning, whether it's justification to bomb Iraq or drumming up concern around Jewishness in Brooklyn. It's the language of bigotry.
posted by naju at 1:54 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by naju at 1:54 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
having the pool be better monitored for rule breaking seems like a better solution to the hasidim rudeness than just whole cloth removing the accommodation.
Given the resource constraints that I am sure exist for these public pools, I'm not sure that better monitoring is something that can be mandated.
If the accommodation is enabling shitty behaviour that will cost $$ to fix, I'm not sure how you can argue that the Parks Department is wrong for choosing not to continue to implement the accommodation.
I think that hearing from folks who have actually used this pool changes the discussion fundamentally. We aren't talking about abstract ideas like "safe spaces for women." We're talking about a public pool that for a handful of hours a week is being made inaccessible by everyone except for women of the Hasidim. This segregation is being enforced partially by official government action (women's only time), and partially by bad actors in the community. Taking away the government support for this is a reasonable choice in a world where there isn't enough money to fund enough lifeguards to keep everyone in line.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Given the resource constraints that I am sure exist for these public pools, I'm not sure that better monitoring is something that can be mandated.
If the accommodation is enabling shitty behaviour that will cost $$ to fix, I'm not sure how you can argue that the Parks Department is wrong for choosing not to continue to implement the accommodation.
I think that hearing from folks who have actually used this pool changes the discussion fundamentally. We aren't talking about abstract ideas like "safe spaces for women." We're talking about a public pool that for a handful of hours a week is being made inaccessible by everyone except for women of the Hasidim. This segregation is being enforced partially by official government action (women's only time), and partially by bad actors in the community. Taking away the government support for this is a reasonable choice in a world where there isn't enough money to fund enough lifeguards to keep everyone in line.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'd like to think the city government has the ability to take an idea, separate it from its initial motive (that could be rejected on principle), and then continue on to entertain the outcomes of implementing said idea.
posted by avalonian at 1:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by avalonian at 1:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
praemunire: I don't like it either, and I think the way they enforce it is gross, but it's not our job to tell a community what cultural standards it should have. And, again, the segregated bussing is a serious issue and needs to be stomped down
I think someone else up thread made the point that this line of argument sounds not too dissimilar from the Europeans worried about Sharia law. This is life in a major city. I lived in communities with strong Orthodox Jewish communities and strong Muslim communities. What they do in those communities is generally their own business, until the actually start harming others.. I'll leave it at that and wash my hands of this thread.
posted by SansPoint at 1:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think someone else up thread made the point that this line of argument sounds not too dissimilar from the Europeans worried about Sharia law. This is life in a major city. I lived in communities with strong Orthodox Jewish communities and strong Muslim communities. What they do in those communities is generally their own business, until the actually start harming others.. I'll leave it at that and wash my hands of this thread.
posted by SansPoint at 1:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Adding to my earlier point, and slippery sloping as has become custom...
I mean, there is an actual, meaningful principle involved here. We don't think it's a good idea generally for the state to enforce religious beliefs or to favor one religious group over another or over the nonreligious, because much of the last 500 years of European history has shown what carnage that can cause.
So if the religious right were in favor of socialized healthcare because that's what the teachings of The Bible would support, would we throw such an idea out because it came from a religious source?
posted by avalonian at 1:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, there is an actual, meaningful principle involved here. We don't think it's a good idea generally for the state to enforce religious beliefs or to favor one religious group over another or over the nonreligious, because much of the last 500 years of European history has shown what carnage that can cause.
So if the religious right were in favor of socialized healthcare because that's what the teachings of The Bible would support, would we throw such an idea out because it came from a religious source?
posted by avalonian at 1:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
And, again, the segregated bussing is a serious issue and needs to be stomped down
And it isn't being stomped down. (And sexist, discriminatory signs are being allowed to remain.) That was my point.
Yeah, I think I'll leave this thread for a while.
posted by Melismata at 1:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
And it isn't being stomped down. (And sexist, discriminatory signs are being allowed to remain.) That was my point.
Yeah, I think I'll leave this thread for a while.
posted by Melismata at 1:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
So you can respect a secular reason but not a religious one?
Let's not use the word "respect." I generally prefer not to take positions on whether other people's religious beliefs merit "respect" or are "respectable."
I do believe that some reasons are proper for the state to act upon and some are not. I have to admit I'm struggling a bit with the idea that there are educated Americans who are unaware of the fact that, within the usual complex web of contradictions and exceptions, there is an underlying constitutional principle that it is illegal for governments in the United States to take actions with strictly religious motives. This is not some shocking Dawkinsesque lunatic theory I'm parroting. This is basic constitutional law. You can definitely argue about the application here--the law is very complex, so I will readily concede that you can take a good-faith position that the policy is constitutional--but the very idea that our constitution treats religious motivations for state action as categorically different from secular ones? This is not in doubt.
posted by praemunire at 2:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Let's not use the word "respect." I generally prefer not to take positions on whether other people's religious beliefs merit "respect" or are "respectable."
I do believe that some reasons are proper for the state to act upon and some are not. I have to admit I'm struggling a bit with the idea that there are educated Americans who are unaware of the fact that, within the usual complex web of contradictions and exceptions, there is an underlying constitutional principle that it is illegal for governments in the United States to take actions with strictly religious motives. This is not some shocking Dawkinsesque lunatic theory I'm parroting. This is basic constitutional law. You can definitely argue about the application here--the law is very complex, so I will readily concede that you can take a good-faith position that the policy is constitutional--but the very idea that our constitution treats religious motivations for state action as categorically different from secular ones? This is not in doubt.
posted by praemunire at 2:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
I await the arguments about senior-only swim times and parent and tot swim times.
kids are dirty and pee in the pool, which is why separate kiddie pools are important.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:01 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
kids are dirty and pee in the pool, which is why separate kiddie pools are important.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:01 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
What's next?
It seems stupid as hell to me to try to make a principled stand on the backs of an oppressed minority. In this case, Hasidic women.
Segregated public buses (already discussed)? Segregated public schools? Segregated places of work? Mandatory "modest" clothing for women in public, including sheitels, so that Hasidic men are not drawn to sin in their hearts? These are real questions, based on what has happened elsewhere, not some silly theoretical reductio ad absurdum.
No, they pretty much seem like a reductio ad absurdum argument to me.
Maintaining pool access for women does not strike me as the reasonable start of a slippery slope argument.
We have laws against segregation of buses because those are bright line equality violations that cannot be justified in any way by religious accommodation. Which is why when complaints are made, the idiots who try to do such things are told to knock it off or they're fined by the city or dragged into court and ordered to stop. Title IX prohibits gender discrimination, which includes single-sex education in public schools. If enforcement is a problem, then let's be honest and say that.
Do you want East Williamsburg to look, when it comes to gender relations, like the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods of Israel, under penalty of law enforced by New York City and state government?
No.
Is there any sign that this could possibly happen? Also no.
This is a sharia law argument. It's a stupid one, and offensive.
posted by zarq at 2:12 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
It seems stupid as hell to me to try to make a principled stand on the backs of an oppressed minority. In this case, Hasidic women.
Segregated public buses (already discussed)? Segregated public schools? Segregated places of work? Mandatory "modest" clothing for women in public, including sheitels, so that Hasidic men are not drawn to sin in their hearts? These are real questions, based on what has happened elsewhere, not some silly theoretical reductio ad absurdum.
No, they pretty much seem like a reductio ad absurdum argument to me.
Maintaining pool access for women does not strike me as the reasonable start of a slippery slope argument.
We have laws against segregation of buses because those are bright line equality violations that cannot be justified in any way by religious accommodation. Which is why when complaints are made, the idiots who try to do such things are told to knock it off or they're fined by the city or dragged into court and ordered to stop. Title IX prohibits gender discrimination, which includes single-sex education in public schools. If enforcement is a problem, then let's be honest and say that.
Do you want East Williamsburg to look, when it comes to gender relations, like the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods of Israel, under penalty of law enforced by New York City and state government?
No.
Is there any sign that this could possibly happen? Also no.
This is a sharia law argument. It's a stupid one, and offensive.
posted by zarq at 2:12 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
So reading this thread only one or two people have proposed the obvious solution of adding men-only hours. Single-gender facilities or times aren't discrimination if both genders are accommodated. The Commission on Human Rights seems to think the current schedule violates the law but adding men-only times, regardless of whether or not men in the community requested it, should end those concerns.
I don't think separate but equal is Constitutional.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think separate but equal is Constitutional.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Taking away the government support for this is a reasonable choice in a world where there isn't enough money to fund enough lifeguards to keep everyone in line.
You know, I agree with that, but it's not the reasoning being used to try to remove women's swim time and indeed, there's no evidence that there aren't enough resources to maintain a safe and pleasant environment for all women during women's swim time.
posted by Krom Tatman at 2:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
You know, I agree with that, but it's not the reasoning being used to try to remove women's swim time and indeed, there's no evidence that there aren't enough resources to maintain a safe and pleasant environment for all women during women's swim time.
posted by Krom Tatman at 2:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
"They want to impose their values upon the rest of the world and will stop at nothing to change YOUR precious secular way of life" is not an okay line of reasoning,
Sorry, even if I had said that, which I did not, this is specious. We are not talking about some right-wing vision of Sharia no-go zones in London. We are talking about a case in which, literally, explicitly, the Hasidim in this particular community are imposing their values on a state-run institution, to the point of excluding others from taxpayer-paid-for public resources. The same group has actually sought to impose their values on other institutions, as has been discussed at some length in this thread. It is not inappropriate, in discussing the case, to ask what further institutions might be affected. Especially when people argue with apparent unawareness of the principle at stake. That principle is basically the same whether you're talking about 21st-century Hasidim or the 18th-century English church which prompted the anti-establishment clause in the First Amendment: when the government starts enforcing religious values or favoring a particular religious group, it can easily become oppression. Right now my NYC agnostic taxpayer dollars are going to enforce exclusion of people from a public resource on the basis of someone else's religious belief, and I'm not okay with that. I guess that's all I have to say.
posted by praemunire at 2:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sorry, even if I had said that, which I did not, this is specious. We are not talking about some right-wing vision of Sharia no-go zones in London. We are talking about a case in which, literally, explicitly, the Hasidim in this particular community are imposing their values on a state-run institution, to the point of excluding others from taxpayer-paid-for public resources. The same group has actually sought to impose their values on other institutions, as has been discussed at some length in this thread. It is not inappropriate, in discussing the case, to ask what further institutions might be affected. Especially when people argue with apparent unawareness of the principle at stake. That principle is basically the same whether you're talking about 21st-century Hasidim or the 18th-century English church which prompted the anti-establishment clause in the First Amendment: when the government starts enforcing religious values or favoring a particular religious group, it can easily become oppression. Right now my NYC agnostic taxpayer dollars are going to enforce exclusion of people from a public resource on the basis of someone else's religious belief, and I'm not okay with that. I guess that's all I have to say.
posted by praemunire at 2:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Modesty enforcement, including via breaking and entering, occurs in this neighborhood.
And that is illegal, ranging somewhere on a scale from harassment to terrorism. Proper enforcement of the law should absolutely be a priority, and it is a failure of government if it is not.
posted by Dysk at 2:17 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
And that is illegal, ranging somewhere on a scale from harassment to terrorism. Proper enforcement of the law should absolutely be a priority, and it is a failure of government if it is not.
posted by Dysk at 2:17 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
So reading this thread only one or two people have proposed the obvious solution of adding men-only hours.
ALL HOURS at the pool are men-only hours by default because the frum men won't leave if women, frum or not, show up to swim, they will fuss and insist that the women be forced to leave. See also: plane seating.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:18 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
ALL HOURS at the pool are men-only hours by default because the frum men won't leave if women, frum or not, show up to swim, they will fuss and insist that the women be forced to leave. See also: plane seating.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:18 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can we just make women in charge of laws for awhile? And in charge of pontificating on their effects on us men? Only until we break even on representation. A few hundred (or thousand) years should do it, depending on how you're counting.
posted by avalonian at 2:25 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by avalonian at 2:25 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
For heavens sake, let the women swim.
posted by clavdivs at 2:29 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 2:29 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Government allows a few hours for Hasidic women to use the pool: you're enforcing exclusion of people (men) from a public resource!!
Government declines to do this: you're enforcing exclusion of people (Hasidic women) from a public resource!!
See how that works? You're not the only taxpayer involved in this situation, are you? Either way, someone is being excluded. Either you're accused of expressly advancing a religion, or you're accused of expressly prohibiting its members from using your public resource, and neither are allowed in the Constitution.
Or you unclench and realize that, as agregoli said, "This is about a pool being used for a few hours a week."
posted by naju at 2:31 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Government declines to do this: you're enforcing exclusion of people (Hasidic women) from a public resource!!
See how that works? You're not the only taxpayer involved in this situation, are you? Either way, someone is being excluded. Either you're accused of expressly advancing a religion, or you're accused of expressly prohibiting its members from using your public resource, and neither are allowed in the Constitution.
Or you unclench and realize that, as agregoli said, "This is about a pool being used for a few hours a week."
posted by naju at 2:31 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Oh man, you think pools are complicated. If only people in New York knew about the special Book-Reading Speedos we have to wear at public libraries up here in Canada.
posted by chococat at 2:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by chococat at 2:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
If only people in New York knew about the special Book-Reading Speedos we have to wear at public libraries up here in Canada.
ssssssshhhhhhhh!!!!
ixnay on the eedo-spay alk-tay
posted by GuyZero at 2:36 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
ssssssshhhhhhhh!!!!
ixnay on the eedo-spay alk-tay
posted by GuyZero at 2:36 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
no evidence that there aren't enough resources to maintain a safe and pleasant environment for all women during women's swim time.
We know that a safe and pleasant environment is not being maintained for non-Hasidim during women's swim time. It might be conjecture that it's a resource problem, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was: pools are expensive; people hate paying taxes.
[Religious bigots being assholes to non-religious women] is not the reasoning being used to try to remove women's swim time
The reasoning being used (and this is a sweeping paraphrase of this very long thread) is that allowing the government to help enforce religious rules makes life shittier for people who aren't members of that religion. The counterpoint (again, paraphrasing) is that women's time is good for all women so there is a valid, secular, public policy reason for this rule -- with some also arguing that even without a secular purpose, this is still a good thing to do.
What's actually happening, on the ground, is that the government is helping to enforce religious rules, and because some religious bigots are being assholes to outsiders, the space it not actually open for all women, and therefore life is made shittier for people who aren't members of that religion.
So the reasoning for the pushback does seem to line up with the reasons why it isn't working well, which seems to confirm that the pushback was justified to begin with.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:40 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
We know that a safe and pleasant environment is not being maintained for non-Hasidim during women's swim time. It might be conjecture that it's a resource problem, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was: pools are expensive; people hate paying taxes.
[Religious bigots being assholes to non-religious women] is not the reasoning being used to try to remove women's swim time
The reasoning being used (and this is a sweeping paraphrase of this very long thread) is that allowing the government to help enforce religious rules makes life shittier for people who aren't members of that religion. The counterpoint (again, paraphrasing) is that women's time is good for all women so there is a valid, secular, public policy reason for this rule -- with some also arguing that even without a secular purpose, this is still a good thing to do.
What's actually happening, on the ground, is that the government is helping to enforce religious rules, and because some religious bigots are being assholes to outsiders, the space it not actually open for all women, and therefore life is made shittier for people who aren't members of that religion.
So the reasoning for the pushback does seem to line up with the reasons why it isn't working well, which seems to confirm that the pushback was justified to begin with.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:40 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
the space it not actually open for all women
AGAIN, the space is 100% open for all women, and has been for two decades. Some women are harassing others. That is an enforcement of the rules issue, not a reason to do away with the time entirely.
posted by zarq at 2:44 PM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
AGAIN, the space is 100% open for all women, and has been for two decades. Some women are harassing others. That is an enforcement of the rules issue, not a reason to do away with the time entirely.
posted by zarq at 2:44 PM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
100% pure conjecture, straight from the conjecture mines of the Adirondacks
posted by Krom Tatman at 2:53 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 2:53 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Oh man, you think pools are complicated. If only people in New York knew about the special Book-Reading Speedos we have to wear at public libraries up here in Canada.
it's just as we feared, our neighbors to the north have already fallen victim to Spandiah law
posted by Krom Tatman at 3:10 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
it's just as we feared, our neighbors to the north have already fallen victim to Spandiah law
posted by Krom Tatman at 3:10 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
If only people in New York knew about the special Book-Reading Speedos we have to wear at public libraries up here in Canada.
Speedreading was a far more noble sport before the advent of aerodynamic reados and reading-enhancing drugs. Test 'em all, is what I say. You want to read? Pee in the cup.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 3:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Speedreading was a far more noble sport before the advent of aerodynamic reados and reading-enhancing drugs. Test 'em all, is what I say. You want to read? Pee in the cup.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 3:16 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
AGAIN, the space is 100% open for all women, and has been for two decades. Some women are harassing others. That is an enforcement of the rules issue, not a reason to do away with the time entirely.
In a perfect world, yes, it would just be an enforcement issue. In the real world, some people who requested an accommodation for religious reasons, being assholes about using that accommodation seem is a perfectly justifiable reason too drop the accommodation (with a heavy "this is why we can't have nice things" sigh).
Especially when you think about the form that that enforcement is likely to take: There would need to be increased scrutiny in the pool during a time when it is populated mostly by a minority community. It's going to result in, at the least, community members getting kicked out. From dame's report, those community members are primarily going to be Hasidim. It's going to look anti-semetic as hell and the Park Board and admin staff and life guards are all going to have to deal with the fallout from that.
So, there's no enforcement, and non-Hasidic women have defacto private use of the pool (for 8 hours a week), right now. Maybe, if I lived in Brooklyn, I'd be organizing a posse of black and arab and tattooed and butch women to go take back women's hour and freak out the squares. I don't blame dame (or other women of that neighbourhood) for not wanting to do that though -- that's not their job.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:18 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
In a perfect world, yes, it would just be an enforcement issue. In the real world, some people who requested an accommodation for religious reasons, being assholes about using that accommodation seem is a perfectly justifiable reason too drop the accommodation (with a heavy "this is why we can't have nice things" sigh).
Especially when you think about the form that that enforcement is likely to take: There would need to be increased scrutiny in the pool during a time when it is populated mostly by a minority community. It's going to result in, at the least, community members getting kicked out. From dame's report, those community members are primarily going to be Hasidim. It's going to look anti-semetic as hell and the Park Board and admin staff and life guards are all going to have to deal with the fallout from that.
So, there's no enforcement, and non-Hasidic women have defacto private use of the pool (for 8 hours a week), right now. Maybe, if I lived in Brooklyn, I'd be organizing a posse of black and arab and tattooed and butch women to go take back women's hour and freak out the squares. I don't blame dame (or other women of that neighbourhood) for not wanting to do that though -- that's not their job.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:18 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Speedreading was a far more noble sport before the advent of aerodynamic reados
Luckily we don't have those here yet, but I have seen people shave their entire bodies in an attempt to get through A Song Of Ice And Fire quicker.
posted by chococat at 3:22 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Luckily we don't have those here yet, but I have seen people shave their entire bodies in an attempt to get through A Song Of Ice And Fire quicker.
posted by chococat at 3:22 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
You know I love you Canadians one and all but let's not go too far down the rabbit hole on this.
posted by cortex at 3:28 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex at 3:28 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Especially when you think about the form that that enforcement is likely to take
A lifeguard telling people to cut out the horseplay and leave each other alone works just fine at my neighborhood pool. Can we please not spin wild scenarios in which accusations of antisemitism are flying because someone told some Jewish women to play nice?
posted by zarq at 3:32 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
A lifeguard telling people to cut out the horseplay and leave each other alone works just fine at my neighborhood pool. Can we please not spin wild scenarios in which accusations of antisemitism are flying because someone told some Jewish women to play nice?
posted by zarq at 3:32 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
Why do we have to start fabricating hordes of tattooed butch Muslim women "freaking out" hasidic swimming ladies who then accuse Parks & Rec of anti-Semitism. It kind of seems like you're all putting the cart before the horse, here. Borrowing trouble. I don't understand why things can't continue as they have, apparently without much fuss since the mid-90s. Have lifeguards enforce pool regulations more strictly so you don't have the sort of passive aggressive behavior Dove mentioned above, and see how it goes.
My mom grew up in Flatbush on Beford Avenue, went to Yeshiva, spent her teens and early twenties with skirts to her ankle and sleeves past her elbows. I've been glared at, commented at/about, and ignored by ultra-Orthodox on that very street! I know how frustrating it is, and I am in complete agreement that things like segregated buses are taking things too far.
But it's really, really disingenuous to say "HOW DARE THEY BOW TO RELIGIOUS INTERESTS by continuing to have women's swim hours!" when, you know what, that pool is closed on Christmas, too. It seems like its much easier for people to stand up for a stringent separation of church and state when the "church" being impacted is a small sect of a minority religion.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:09 PM on June 3, 2016 [28 favorites]
My mom grew up in Flatbush on Beford Avenue, went to Yeshiva, spent her teens and early twenties with skirts to her ankle and sleeves past her elbows. I've been glared at, commented at/about, and ignored by ultra-Orthodox on that very street! I know how frustrating it is, and I am in complete agreement that things like segregated buses are taking things too far.
But it's really, really disingenuous to say "HOW DARE THEY BOW TO RELIGIOUS INTERESTS by continuing to have women's swim hours!" when, you know what, that pool is closed on Christmas, too. It seems like its much easier for people to stand up for a stringent separation of church and state when the "church" being impacted is a small sect of a minority religion.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:09 PM on June 3, 2016 [28 favorites]
So, I'm an atheist with a fairly relaxed attitude to public nudity, and I only swim at one of my local pools during the women's sessions because the last time I was there during mixed hours a guy tapped my feet mid-lap to tell me that he had been staring at my fanjo for the last few lengths, and did I want to leave the pool and go back to his flat to have sex with him. This was on a Tuesday lunchtime.
I'm a very strong swimmer, swam competitively in school, scuba dive, and go on long-distance swimming holidays. I love swimming. But this kind of thing, which is not an infrequent occurrence, has genuinely affected my enjoyment of it. As a teenage girl, there is always a worry that people are staring at your body underwater. As you get older and less self-conscious, you think to yourself that teenage-you was being silly, and of course nobody is staring at you. But apparently they are! It's really creepy and unsettling, and puts me off visiting certain pools (there are others with a lower creep factor, but they are further away).
Really, there are numerous reasons why women don't want to swim with men present which are completely unrelated to religion (I've also heard groups of young men shouting insults at older overweight women, shouting rude comments about younger women's breasts, had teenage boys attempt to jump off the side ONTO me when I've been swimming lengths... just banning groups of men under 35 altogether would be great from my point of view).
Women only hours are unremarkable in the UK, as are over 50s sessions, mother and baby sessions, swimfit sessions, lane sessions, school sessions, aqua aerobics... I would find it a bit weird if a public pool didn't offer women only sessions. Many older ladies don't want to be seen in public in their swimming costumes. Many overweight women don't either. The rest of us don't want disruptive idiots showing off to their friends when we're trying to swim (and it is always groups of young men doing this stuff).
The people complaining about this are either not women (because this sort of stuff, like catcalling, appears to be completely invisible to other men), or they just don't spend much time in public swimming baths. The women's sessions are never at peak times. There are plenty of other pools about. If you're a man and absolutely need to swim between 10-11am on a weekday, go half a mile down the road to your second nearest one.
posted by tinkletown at 4:48 PM on June 3, 2016 [22 favorites]
I'm a very strong swimmer, swam competitively in school, scuba dive, and go on long-distance swimming holidays. I love swimming. But this kind of thing, which is not an infrequent occurrence, has genuinely affected my enjoyment of it. As a teenage girl, there is always a worry that people are staring at your body underwater. As you get older and less self-conscious, you think to yourself that teenage-you was being silly, and of course nobody is staring at you. But apparently they are! It's really creepy and unsettling, and puts me off visiting certain pools (there are others with a lower creep factor, but they are further away).
Really, there are numerous reasons why women don't want to swim with men present which are completely unrelated to religion (I've also heard groups of young men shouting insults at older overweight women, shouting rude comments about younger women's breasts, had teenage boys attempt to jump off the side ONTO me when I've been swimming lengths... just banning groups of men under 35 altogether would be great from my point of view).
Women only hours are unremarkable in the UK, as are over 50s sessions, mother and baby sessions, swimfit sessions, lane sessions, school sessions, aqua aerobics... I would find it a bit weird if a public pool didn't offer women only sessions. Many older ladies don't want to be seen in public in their swimming costumes. Many overweight women don't either. The rest of us don't want disruptive idiots showing off to their friends when we're trying to swim (and it is always groups of young men doing this stuff).
The people complaining about this are either not women (because this sort of stuff, like catcalling, appears to be completely invisible to other men), or they just don't spend much time in public swimming baths. The women's sessions are never at peak times. There are plenty of other pools about. If you're a man and absolutely need to swim between 10-11am on a weekday, go half a mile down the road to your second nearest one.
posted by tinkletown at 4:48 PM on June 3, 2016 [22 favorites]
Once again I'm reminded of why I love metafilter. I came in leaning one way and now am leaning the other. Thanks for the good discussion.
posted by wester at 4:53 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by wester at 4:53 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
he had been staring at my fanjo for the last few lengths, and did I want to leave the pool and go back to his flat to have sex with him. This was on a Tuesday lunchtime.
And here I've spent my life awkwardly trying to keep a body length between me and other swimmers to not make them feel uncomfortable. The behaviour of other men never ceases to amaze me. (not in a good way)
posted by GuyZero at 4:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
And here I've spent my life awkwardly trying to keep a body length between me and other swimmers to not make them feel uncomfortable. The behaviour of other men never ceases to amaze me. (not in a good way)
posted by GuyZero at 4:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because regardless of what is technically in the law, the Hasidic community clearly has a substantial amount of sway when it comes to these pools, and this policy that is designed for them
And why is that, you may ask? Because they vote in a bloc, and politicians love that.
posted by Melismata at 6:21 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
And why is that, you may ask? Because they vote in a bloc, and politicians love that.
posted by Melismata at 6:21 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure why voting in a bloc is sinister? I think they have a substantial amount of sway in talking about these pools because they make up a substantial portion of the population that votes in this part of Brooklyn, and also a substantial portion of the population. And, they're a small insular community with a particular set of beliefs that are counter to the general population, so they're probably all going to be voting for things that support their particular set of beliefs. In much the same way that any niche constituency does; that's not unique to the ultra-Orthodox.
posted by ChuraChura at 6:27 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 6:27 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bloc voting is fine if they vote for what you agree with.
posted by Melismata at 6:39 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Melismata at 6:39 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Taking away the government support for this is a reasonable choice in a world where there isn't enough money to fund enough lifeguards to keep everyone in line.
if we're going to go down the slippery slope ride, it seems like this is actually an argument for closing the pool all together. if they can't enforce their rules and keep it safe and accommodating for all, then why does it exist? unless throwing their hands up and saying money is just a good way to not actually have to fix the issue.
posted by nadawi at 6:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
if we're going to go down the slippery slope ride, it seems like this is actually an argument for closing the pool all together. if they can't enforce their rules and keep it safe and accommodating for all, then why does it exist? unless throwing their hands up and saying money is just a good way to not actually have to fix the issue.
posted by nadawi at 6:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure why voting in a bloc is sinister?
Because of things like this.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:54 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
1) No one said they love it being closed on Christmas so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is
2) Knowing Brooklyn it's probably closed on all the Jewish holidays too
I conveniently linked the schedule. It -- and indeed all Recreation Centres -- are closed on Christmas and Easter but not Yom Kippur or the holidays of any other religion. This is obvious religious pandering, and certainly excludes non-Christians who might like to swim on these days.
If you (generic) want a fully secular government, that's awesome and I would like that too, but look at the baked in preferences given to Christians (for holidays and weekends) and to some extent Jews (weekends) and plan on getting rid of those before you (generic) pat yourself (generic) on the back too hard.
posted by jeather at 6:58 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
2) Knowing Brooklyn it's probably closed on all the Jewish holidays too
I conveniently linked the schedule. It -- and indeed all Recreation Centres -- are closed on Christmas and Easter but not Yom Kippur or the holidays of any other religion. This is obvious religious pandering, and certainly excludes non-Christians who might like to swim on these days.
If you (generic) want a fully secular government, that's awesome and I would like that too, but look at the baked in preferences given to Christians (for holidays and weekends) and to some extent Jews (weekends) and plan on getting rid of those before you (generic) pat yourself (generic) on the back too hard.
posted by jeather at 6:58 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Public pools generally require a head covering. It is called a bathing cap.
In the early 90's I was staying at a hotel in NJ and saw a Muslim woman swimming in their pool wearing an abaya and hijab. IIRC she was also using a life preserver around her waist.
Nthing that basic rules of civility should be enforced.
posted by brujita at 7:06 PM on June 3, 2016
In the early 90's I was staying at a hotel in NJ and saw a Muslim woman swimming in their pool wearing an abaya and hijab. IIRC she was also using a life preserver around her waist.
Nthing that basic rules of civility should be enforced.
posted by brujita at 7:06 PM on June 3, 2016
if the argument here is that the Hasidic community is going to use their clout to enforce a policy of informal discrimination against gender-non-conforming women in defiance of NYC law, I'm not sure how having the women's swim or not would change that. There will still be gendered bathrooms and locker rooms, after all. Seems like the more pressing place for political pressure is on the parks department's nonenforcement of rules.
posted by Krom Tatman at 7:08 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 7:08 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
do public pools require swimming caps up there? i have never seen that here in the south, but we're generally regarded as uncouth heathens, i suppose.
posted by nadawi at 7:21 PM on June 3, 2016
posted by nadawi at 7:21 PM on June 3, 2016
When a particular group (here the Hasidim) want a public facility to institute special rules on behalf of the group, the public facility should allow them to do so as a private group that pays for this privilege.
posted by Napoleonic Terrier at 7:54 PM on June 3, 2016
posted by Napoleonic Terrier at 7:54 PM on June 3, 2016
yeah let's run access to public services like The Free Market, that never caused any problems
posted by Krom Tatman at 7:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 7:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
So, here's something to think about. A lot of the conflict in opinion here seems to come from the question of who is an oppressed minority and who isn't. In most places in the country, Hasidic Jews (and frequently Jews in general) are a minority who face discrimination. In this one neighborhood, Hasidic Jews have a lot of influence and power and have used that power in ways which people are upset about. Does this actually change anything? Should local laws and regulations change depending on the concentration and power of various groups?
I don't know the answer, but I think some people should keep in mind that they are probably reacting emotionally to this question because they have an atypical experience. When there's this kind of tension in communities anger and prejudice ran rampant on all sides.
posted by threeturtles at 9:26 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't know the answer, but I think some people should keep in mind that they are probably reacting emotionally to this question because they have an atypical experience. When there's this kind of tension in communities anger and prejudice ran rampant on all sides.
posted by threeturtles at 9:26 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
When a particular group (here the Hasidim) want a public facility to institute special rules on behalf of the group, the public facility should allow them to do so as a private group that pays for this privilege.
I look forward to the day when the Christian community in the US start funding the public school system. You know, the one that panders to their religion with all the God stuff in the pledge of allegiance and so on. Which is totally fine! For a private group paying for it privately...
posted by Dysk at 12:32 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I look forward to the day when the Christian community in the US start funding the public school system. You know, the one that panders to their religion with all the God stuff in the pledge of allegiance and so on. Which is totally fine! For a private group paying for it privately...
posted by Dysk at 12:32 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Really thrown for a loop by a lot of the chat here, albeit from the UK where women-only sessions are commonplace. The idea that compromise for the needs of groups within society is anathema to secularism has blindsided me a bit, but it's good to get out of one's bubble, I suppose.
posted by ominous_paws at 3:22 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 3:22 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ultra orthodox Jewish communities in NYC are, in some ways, relatively powerful special interest groups. But individuals are often very poor. Public NYC pools were created especially to give access to healthy, cool activities like swimming during brutal summers to groups with little ability to get out of the city for the summers.
On top of that, I look at history and I look at the present, and I don't see any examples where using isolation (intentionally or as an impact of another policy) has led marginalized groups into closer and better relationships with the groups around them, or towards greater freedom for the individuals within them. (And yes, many Ultra orthodox Jews are there by choice, but... choices are constrained and many of them are born into their systems, educated solely within them, socialize within in them, and may be married with 3+ children by the time they start to think about making different choices, and have a lot to risk by actually making them. Sure, these women could stop being Orthodox, if they are able to walk away from all the people who have ever loved and supported them, all their means of financial stability, and their own children, into a world where they are essentially speaking English as a second language. (The group Footsteps is doing some great work to help those who want to leave, leave, but it is very difficult even for those who are doing it without minor children they will have to fight long and hard for even shared custody of).
On so many levels, it makes sense to me for the answer to segregation and exclusion to be proactively pursuing inclusion. Not only having women-only hours, but for those who care about diversity to be supporting pool use by a broader subset of Williamsburg population, making logistical access as easy as possible, publicizing it, offering organized and informal activities for groups likely to not be from the Hasidic community, and putting in the time and effort to make sure that others don't have the bad experiences that Dame had. Yes, that requires dedicated activists and long term engagement and will probably include a fair number of uncomfortable incidents along the way, incidents that the activists would have to do their best to take the brunt of upon themselves to protect others. And if all that effort doesn't seem worth it to others who just want a swim too, then fine, but true progressive progress requires a lot more than writing rules that fit one's conscience without attending to the impact (though still a lot less than what it usually takes for the ultra orthodox to walk away from their communities).
I think it is possible and desireable both that the pool accommodates religious women who want to use it apart from men, and that it can be a pool for a broader community, it will take effort by people who are deeply committed either to diversity or to swimming, but it is the best way forward.
posted by Salamandrous at 5:37 AM on June 4, 2016 [11 favorites]
On top of that, I look at history and I look at the present, and I don't see any examples where using isolation (intentionally or as an impact of another policy) has led marginalized groups into closer and better relationships with the groups around them, or towards greater freedom for the individuals within them. (And yes, many Ultra orthodox Jews are there by choice, but... choices are constrained and many of them are born into their systems, educated solely within them, socialize within in them, and may be married with 3+ children by the time they start to think about making different choices, and have a lot to risk by actually making them. Sure, these women could stop being Orthodox, if they are able to walk away from all the people who have ever loved and supported them, all their means of financial stability, and their own children, into a world where they are essentially speaking English as a second language. (The group Footsteps is doing some great work to help those who want to leave, leave, but it is very difficult even for those who are doing it without minor children they will have to fight long and hard for even shared custody of).
On so many levels, it makes sense to me for the answer to segregation and exclusion to be proactively pursuing inclusion. Not only having women-only hours, but for those who care about diversity to be supporting pool use by a broader subset of Williamsburg population, making logistical access as easy as possible, publicizing it, offering organized and informal activities for groups likely to not be from the Hasidic community, and putting in the time and effort to make sure that others don't have the bad experiences that Dame had. Yes, that requires dedicated activists and long term engagement and will probably include a fair number of uncomfortable incidents along the way, incidents that the activists would have to do their best to take the brunt of upon themselves to protect others. And if all that effort doesn't seem worth it to others who just want a swim too, then fine, but true progressive progress requires a lot more than writing rules that fit one's conscience without attending to the impact (though still a lot less than what it usually takes for the ultra orthodox to walk away from their communities).
I think it is possible and desireable both that the pool accommodates religious women who want to use it apart from men, and that it can be a pool for a broader community, it will take effort by people who are deeply committed either to diversity or to swimming, but it is the best way forward.
posted by Salamandrous at 5:37 AM on June 4, 2016 [11 favorites]
I had thought having women-only hours at swimming pools was a commonplace policy, and I just checked and they are offered at several local pools. I can remember it from when I was a kid and my mother sometimes preferring to go at those times, so it is not just a thing in response to specific religions.
As long as it is done in the spirit of expanding access and opening more opportunities to the entire community, and it is done in a way that is not trans-exclusionary, I don't see a problem. There are a lot of specifics to how some religious communities in New York interact with the voting process and with city bureaucracies that seems (from what I can see from articles, as a total outsider) to be problematic, but that is a much larger and more complex problem than the schedule at a local pool.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:18 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
As long as it is done in the spirit of expanding access and opening more opportunities to the entire community, and it is done in a way that is not trans-exclusionary, I don't see a problem. There are a lot of specifics to how some religious communities in New York interact with the voting process and with city bureaucracies that seems (from what I can see from articles, as a total outsider) to be problematic, but that is a much larger and more complex problem than the schedule at a local pool.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:18 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's something weird about the way that the NYT is very much against women-only swim sessions in Brooklyn, but very much in favor in Toronto.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:13 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:13 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sure the Shomrim will volunteer to monitor conduct during women-only swim hours. Problem solved, right?
posted by crank at 8:31 AM on June 4, 2016
posted by crank at 8:31 AM on June 4, 2016
Are there any actual people who are negatively affected by the women-only hours? Per the OP it looks like this was all set off by one anonymous complaint to the human rights commission. (I am assuming that the writers of the NYT editorial are not themselves personally affected.)
I think one of the problems in American society is that we are really far to the 'rules-lawyering' side of the principles vs. pragmatism spectrum. Sure, one can imagine situations with some analogy to this which would clearly be a significant and disruptive change to the principle of governmental religious neutrality.
This is not it.
It's interesting to me that several of the Canadians in this thread have chimed in with a sort of bemused tone. In my experience, their country's attitude toward religious accommodation* is significantly more contextual and case-by-case than the US approach and I think that's ultimately a better, more balanced tack to take.
It should be pointed out that such theocratic autocracies as GERMANY and SWEDEN and THE UNITED KINGDOM and THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO have established churches and/or fund religious schools or congregations with public monies. Yet they, well, spoiler alert, are not actually theocratic autocracies.
There are a lot of different ways to do this Genuinely Pluralist Democracy thing. I actually don't think that any society has got it nearly right yet -- and in some ways the US is still a leader on these issues with important things to teach other societies.
Ultimately, 'reasonable accommodation' means different things to different people. Both sides have to be willing to acknowledge that and to try to work in good faith. It seems like this particular problem has a solution that isn't really hurting anyone directly or significantly, so let's -- just do that?
*I omit Quebec from this assertion because I don't have a lot of firsthand knowledge there
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:31 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think one of the problems in American society is that we are really far to the 'rules-lawyering' side of the principles vs. pragmatism spectrum. Sure, one can imagine situations with some analogy to this which would clearly be a significant and disruptive change to the principle of governmental religious neutrality.
This is not it.
It's interesting to me that several of the Canadians in this thread have chimed in with a sort of bemused tone. In my experience, their country's attitude toward religious accommodation* is significantly more contextual and case-by-case than the US approach and I think that's ultimately a better, more balanced tack to take.
It should be pointed out that such theocratic autocracies as GERMANY and SWEDEN and THE UNITED KINGDOM and THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO have established churches and/or fund religious schools or congregations with public monies. Yet they, well, spoiler alert, are not actually theocratic autocracies.
There are a lot of different ways to do this Genuinely Pluralist Democracy thing. I actually don't think that any society has got it nearly right yet -- and in some ways the US is still a leader on these issues with important things to teach other societies.
Ultimately, 'reasonable accommodation' means different things to different people. Both sides have to be willing to acknowledge that and to try to work in good faith. It seems like this particular problem has a solution that isn't really hurting anyone directly or significantly, so let's -- just do that?
*I omit Quebec from this assertion because I don't have a lot of firsthand knowledge there
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:31 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I saw that. As a child of a single parent, I'm sympathetic -- my brother and I spent basically every possible moment all summer at the city pool*. But also, there were lots of times that you couldn't go because the pool was closed or there were swimming lesson times or whatever. Sometimes (quite often, as I recall) the pool was at capacity and you had to wait in line like you were at a damn nightclub. I don't think there were gender segregated times but maybe there were adult swims?
When we weren't able to access the pool we had to do other things.
If there is a problem with not enough hours to accommodate all the communities and demographics that need access, the best answer is to use more public resources. Obviously that is often not possible, so you have to make do with the budget you have. That means trying to find an equitable way to serve all the communities and interests present.
*unsupervised, and there were rarely problems - if unsupervised kids ever caused trouble, they were kicked out
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:52 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
When we weren't able to access the pool we had to do other things.
If there is a problem with not enough hours to accommodate all the communities and demographics that need access, the best answer is to use more public resources. Obviously that is often not possible, so you have to make do with the budget you have. That means trying to find an equitable way to serve all the communities and interests present.
*unsupervised, and there were rarely problems - if unsupervised kids ever caused trouble, they were kicked out
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:52 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
It just seems like the underlying result of this line of argument is to pit different groups of marginalized people against each other rather than acknowledging that our society chooses not to raise sufficient public revenue to support the goal of (in this case) universal access to public water recreation facilities.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:57 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:57 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, this isn't the summer pool; it's the small year-round pool. There is a big restored WPA pool a half-mile away. That one has crazy weekend line-ups and timed entry, plus some lap hours (fewer than Metropolitan), Memorial Day to Labor Day. Its restoration and re-opening of course has a lot to do the gentrification & population explosion in the neighborhood. New York is kind of always crowded, but the city does a pretty good job with access to pools, all things considered.
posted by dame at 11:06 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dame at 11:06 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
it seems that the answer to your question is potentially "yes".
Potentially, sure. But I think it's meaningful that no one who's actually directly affected is saying anything about "this will really have a big impact on me/my family" (as far as I can see). Whereas on the other side there's a whole bunch of people who are apparently asking for women-only swim times and saying this is important to them.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:35 AM on June 4, 2016
Potentially, sure. But I think it's meaningful that no one who's actually directly affected is saying anything about "this will really have a big impact on me/my family" (as far as I can see). Whereas on the other side there's a whole bunch of people who are apparently asking for women-only swim times and saying this is important to them.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:35 AM on June 4, 2016
Indeed, I could not possibly imagine a scenario in which the United Kingdom was rent apart or at all negatively affected by disputes involving government established churches. Or any religious dispute, really. It is completely beyond any imagining. I cannot possibly understand why someone might think there could be a problem there.
Really, there is no country in which a government-established religion causes any problems. The US is really so provincial sometimes!
Quite. I didn't, fortunately, say anything like any of these things. I merely pointed out that there is more than one way to handle complicated problems, and that the way the US has traditionally handled things may have some flaws or may be unnecessarily narrowed by the assumed constraints of our own particular norms.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:41 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Really, there is no country in which a government-established religion causes any problems. The US is really so provincial sometimes!
Quite. I didn't, fortunately, say anything like any of these things. I merely pointed out that there is more than one way to handle complicated problems, and that the way the US has traditionally handled things may have some flaws or may be unnecessarily narrowed by the assumed constraints of our own particular norms.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:41 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Lalex, it's about being anywhere near the opposite sex, because men are weak and women are temptations. There have been cases on airplanes where an ultra-Orthodox man has refused to sit next to a woman. And, the airlines are forcibly making the woman change seats. This is causing all sorts of headaches and lawsuits.
posted by Melismata at 5:44 PM on June 4, 2016
posted by Melismata at 5:44 PM on June 4, 2016
Lalex, it's about being anywhere near the opposite sex, because men are weak and women are temptations.
Wikipedia's article on negiah isn't great, but it does indicate that it isn't about "men being weak" or whatever. That's a bit of a red herring, though, because this is about people's feelings and preferences, not about our right to police them for political correctness.
There are lots of societies including our own that have constructs to separate men and women under varying circumstances. In every case there are some people who need these constructs and others who are injured by them. Some women/men feel threatened in single-gender (multiperson?) bathrooms; others are uncomfortable with the implicit gender-policing that goes on with binary-gendered bathrooms. There's no solution that accommodates everybody without duplicating facilities, which can be a problem.
In this case, you have a neighbourhood with lots of people that aren't comfortable with associating with the opposite gender in the visually- and physically-intimate environment of a swimming pool. You may think they're silly; other societies might think you're silly if you won't (for instance) use a single-gender changing room. We're not talking about a huge level of accommodation here, and the arguments for providing public swimming pools at all are arguments in favor of making them places that the locals want to use.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:07 PM on June 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wikipedia's article on negiah isn't great, but it does indicate that it isn't about "men being weak" or whatever. That's a bit of a red herring, though, because this is about people's feelings and preferences, not about our right to police them for political correctness.
There are lots of societies including our own that have constructs to separate men and women under varying circumstances. In every case there are some people who need these constructs and others who are injured by them. Some women/men feel threatened in single-gender (multiperson?) bathrooms; others are uncomfortable with the implicit gender-policing that goes on with binary-gendered bathrooms. There's no solution that accommodates everybody without duplicating facilities, which can be a problem.
In this case, you have a neighbourhood with lots of people that aren't comfortable with associating with the opposite gender in the visually- and physically-intimate environment of a swimming pool. You may think they're silly; other societies might think you're silly if you won't (for instance) use a single-gender changing room. We're not talking about a huge level of accommodation here, and the arguments for providing public swimming pools at all are arguments in favor of making them places that the locals want to use.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:07 PM on June 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
Lalex, it's about being anywhere near the opposite sex, because men are weak and women are temptations.
Being Shomer Negiah isn't about men being weak and women being temptations. It probably would be, if we were Christians. But we're not.
It's also worth noting that it's based on a negative commandment. Virtually all negative commandments apply equally to both men and women.
There is a ton of written material online about it. Basic definitions, including the wikipedia page Joe in Australia linked to. Much of what's written is from Orthodox people learning to question, analyze and/or abandon the practice. The jewcy essay in particular is worth highlighting, by the way: it talks about how shomer negiah can skew people's priorities and perhaps even stunt their emotional growth by making their sexuality more important than discovering and forging real relationships with a loving partner. It also notes that the ritual as practiced isn't strictly halachic.
It strikes me as a regressive and potentially damaging thing for people to do. And in the case of the airplane seat guy, rude as hell. But if we're going to discuss it, let's at least do so from a foundation of knowledge rather than assumptions, please.
posted by zarq at 9:41 PM on June 4, 2016 [10 favorites]
Being Shomer Negiah isn't about men being weak and women being temptations. It probably would be, if we were Christians. But we're not.
It's also worth noting that it's based on a negative commandment. Virtually all negative commandments apply equally to both men and women.
There is a ton of written material online about it. Basic definitions, including the wikipedia page Joe in Australia linked to. Much of what's written is from Orthodox people learning to question, analyze and/or abandon the practice. The jewcy essay in particular is worth highlighting, by the way: it talks about how shomer negiah can skew people's priorities and perhaps even stunt their emotional growth by making their sexuality more important than discovering and forging real relationships with a loving partner. It also notes that the ritual as practiced isn't strictly halachic.
It strikes me as a regressive and potentially damaging thing for people to do. And in the case of the airplane seat guy, rude as hell. But if we're going to discuss it, let's at least do so from a foundation of knowledge rather than assumptions, please.
posted by zarq at 9:41 PM on June 4, 2016 [10 favorites]
Huh, that's too bad. They should get on that. Again, though, that's not something anyone here said was awesome or wonderful, so gee. It seems a bit of a strawman
It's not. It's a clear double standard.
posted by zarq at 9:43 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not. It's a clear double standard.
posted by zarq at 9:43 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The closed-on-Christian-holy-days thing has been litigated in the USA many times, but as David Schraub puts it:
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:04 AM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
In the entire history of the United States — from 1789 to 2009 — Jews have never once won a Free Exercise case before the Supreme Court.That's a pretty extraordinary record. Basically, any accommodations made for Jewish sensibilities have been made by sympathetic legislatures, not judiciaries.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:04 AM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
There is a basic human right involved here: the right that everyone has to live under a government that does not curtail their access to public services based on someone else's religious beliefs.
Okay. So if you went to this pool and said "Hello, I want you to have women-only times because it's emotionally and physically safer for women" and they said "right you are, we'll schedule these times as women only" that would be okay, yes?
But if a Hasidic woman goes to this pool and requests it on the basis of her religion, you are against that. The thing is... you either have to say yes to both or no to both. If you say yes to the first but not the second, you are discriminating on the basis of religion.
It is a reasonable, no--desirable accommodation to have women-only (and again I hasten to add that per comments above NYC rightly defines trans women as women) swimming times.
I would much prefer to be in a position where I am protected because it is seen as wrong to hurt me, than to be protected simply because those who wish to hurt me are (currently) in no position to do so.
So would I. That would be great. One of the biggest ways we get to that time is to legislate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:41 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Okay. So if you went to this pool and said "Hello, I want you to have women-only times because it's emotionally and physically safer for women" and they said "right you are, we'll schedule these times as women only" that would be okay, yes?
But if a Hasidic woman goes to this pool and requests it on the basis of her religion, you are against that. The thing is... you either have to say yes to both or no to both. If you say yes to the first but not the second, you are discriminating on the basis of religion.
It is a reasonable, no--desirable accommodation to have women-only (and again I hasten to add that per comments above NYC rightly defines trans women as women) swimming times.
I would much prefer to be in a position where I am protected because it is seen as wrong to hurt me, than to be protected simply because those who wish to hurt me are (currently) in no position to do so.
So would I. That would be great. One of the biggest ways we get to that time is to legislate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:41 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have a problem with it if a government official gives it to her with the open and clear intent to specifically accommodate her religious sect & their beliefs
Okay but like... "you cannot have this because of your religion but that person can" is super blatant discrimination that is simply not allowed at all. Do you see that?
If something is approved or denied solely on the basis of religion, that's discrimination.
If something is approved that would be okay coming from another source, that's discrimination. You are not being discriminated against here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:44 AM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Okay but like... "you cannot have this because of your religion but that person can" is super blatant discrimination that is simply not allowed at all. Do you see that?
If something is approved or denied solely on the basis of religion, that's discrimination.
If something is approved that would be okay coming from another source, that's discrimination. You are not being discriminated against here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:44 AM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Amazing how even a discussion about women's hours at a swimming pool in the context of Hasidic communities can turn into 'what about the menz'. Is there any situation where men aren't the real victims?
posted by Dysk at 9:27 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 9:27 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think all this talk about religious vs. non-religious motives is missing the distinction between the motives of the people requesting women's only hours and the government's motives. The people requesting these hours are doing so because they do not believe it is right/proper/allowed to have mixed-sex bathing. that's a religious motive. The government's motive is not that they government doesn't think mixed-sex mathing is right/proper/allowed. The government's motive is to ensure that it is possible for everyone to access the pool. that's a secular motive.
When there are laws saying that you're entitled to take you're religious holiday off even if it's not a day on which things/your employer/your business is closed, that's not because the government thinks it's wrong to work on day X or that you're required to go to a temple on day x, it's because the government wants to make it possible for everyone to hold a job. When prisons serve halal or kosher meals in prison, it's not because the government thinks eating pork is wrong, it's because the government recognizes that people who do believe that need something to eat.
Just because a request is made on religious grounds doesn't mean that the government's reasons for granting the request is religious.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:35 AM on June 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
When there are laws saying that you're entitled to take you're religious holiday off even if it's not a day on which things/your employer/your business is closed, that's not because the government thinks it's wrong to work on day X or that you're required to go to a temple on day x, it's because the government wants to make it possible for everyone to hold a job. When prisons serve halal or kosher meals in prison, it's not because the government thinks eating pork is wrong, it's because the government recognizes that people who do believe that need something to eat.
Just because a request is made on religious grounds doesn't mean that the government's reasons for granting the request is religious.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:35 AM on June 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
Then your position is incoherent. Refusing to do something because of someone's religion, when you would allow it when not based on religion, is discrimination. There's no way around that. If you can arrive at an identical end result via secular means, it's not discrimination to implement it. Kinda like how attorneys can argue inevitable discovery there can be multiple ways to arrive at the same point.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:25 AM on June 5, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:25 AM on June 5, 2016
There is a difference between:
1) a government official's stated motivation for providing something being specifically in order to benefit a religious group, and
I think theres a difference between advantaging a religious group and preventing a disadvantage to a religious group. Like the kosher prison meals and allowing people to take their religious holidays off, this is the latter.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:28 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
1) a government official's stated motivation for providing something being specifically in order to benefit a religious group, and
I think theres a difference between advantaging a religious group and preventing a disadvantage to a religious group. Like the kosher prison meals and allowing people to take their religious holidays off, this is the latter.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:28 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 and feckless fecal fear mongering, you've both made your points VERY clear, you're both digging in and serially commenting and it's clear neither of you is going to give any ground. Please close this thread and remove it from your activity so you're not tempted to come back and continue.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 10:38 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 10:38 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have a problem with it if a government official gives it to her with the open and clear intent to specifically accommodate her religious sect & their beliefs
Accommodation is one thing successfully pluralistic societies do. There are also limits to what they accommodate, and so it's often useful to talk about the problems vs benefits of *specific* accommodations, but getting into the territory of generally complaining about accommodation itself (particularly on the basis of religious belief/disbelief) is moving in the direction of anti-pluralism.
posted by wildblueyonder at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Accommodation is one thing successfully pluralistic societies do. There are also limits to what they accommodate, and so it's often useful to talk about the problems vs benefits of *specific* accommodations, but getting into the territory of generally complaining about accommodation itself (particularly on the basis of religious belief/disbelief) is moving in the direction of anti-pluralism.
posted by wildblueyonder at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
What we need is a translator who will turn things like "we want women-only times so we can go swimming in a modest manner" into "we want a women-only space so we can interact without being subject to the social constraints imposed by the male gaze." That's what they're actually asking for; I don't imagine that they would have used the word "modest" in actual conversation.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:30 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:30 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am against accommodation for people's religious beliefs, particularly when these beliefs involve huge gender bias - but even more I would very much not to disturb today's uneasy detente by changing an arrangement that already exists.
As someone who has lived within walking distance of the pool in question for most of the last three decades... well, I think the reason that this has flared up is that a lot of people in this very diverse neighborhood (Polish, Dominicans, and Mexicans of all ages, yuppies and affluent professionals, aging secular jews, middle-aged artists and bohos, somewhat further east there are Italian-Americans but I don't know anyone specifically...) consider that the neighbors to the south are not good neighbors, and this is just another episode in a series of minor turf disputes.
For example, one congregation has somehow gotten a Federal emergency siren and runs it twice on Fridays and on other holy days - which is absolutely not legal. For years I thought it was the government and I grumbled until I found out the true story.
People have complained to the cops about it over years (not me, it was already established before I got to this apartment 12 years ago) but "there is nothing that can be done". There is a general perception that bloc voting results in special privileges.
The city put a bike path through that neighborhood, and that was poorly received - years of harassment of cyclists ensued. There were threats of people being pulled off their bikes from community spokesmen, but that never actually happened as far as I know, just a bunch of people shouting at bikes. Then there was a year of systematically parking right over the bike paths, which only stopped when the city stepped in and started aggressively ticketing and towing. Now it's just painting over the bike path, which AFAIK has been completely ineffective but still doesn't show the desire to make nice with the rest of us.
Minor disputes have been going on a long, long time. I remember once in the early-mid 90s they locked down the streets of Williamsburg for a night with police cars everywhere because there was a rumor that "the Hispanics" were going to blow up a construction site for public housing because "the Hassids" were getting too many units, or at least so said a cop at the time. (Spoiler: nothing whatsoever happened.)
I am a terribly liberal person in the classical sense and I really wish I could find it in my heart to love these neighbors more, but our world views are very different, and I'm quite sure that the local Hassids find my beliefs at least as deplorable and incomprehensible as I do theirs.
But all that said, I'm for keeping the status quo, even though it's rather against my principles to kowtow to religion.
The US government spends an incredibly huge amount of money on religion when it shouldn't be, and using a tiny bit of that so some neighbor gets to swim who otherwise wouldn't (and these are women who honestly I feel are generally getting the very very short end of the stick in life), well, this just doesn't appear on my radar - particularly if it helps keep the peace.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:14 PM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
As someone who has lived within walking distance of the pool in question for most of the last three decades... well, I think the reason that this has flared up is that a lot of people in this very diverse neighborhood (Polish, Dominicans, and Mexicans of all ages, yuppies and affluent professionals, aging secular jews, middle-aged artists and bohos, somewhat further east there are Italian-Americans but I don't know anyone specifically...) consider that the neighbors to the south are not good neighbors, and this is just another episode in a series of minor turf disputes.
For example, one congregation has somehow gotten a Federal emergency siren and runs it twice on Fridays and on other holy days - which is absolutely not legal. For years I thought it was the government and I grumbled until I found out the true story.
People have complained to the cops about it over years (not me, it was already established before I got to this apartment 12 years ago) but "there is nothing that can be done". There is a general perception that bloc voting results in special privileges.
The city put a bike path through that neighborhood, and that was poorly received - years of harassment of cyclists ensued. There were threats of people being pulled off their bikes from community spokesmen, but that never actually happened as far as I know, just a bunch of people shouting at bikes. Then there was a year of systematically parking right over the bike paths, which only stopped when the city stepped in and started aggressively ticketing and towing. Now it's just painting over the bike path, which AFAIK has been completely ineffective but still doesn't show the desire to make nice with the rest of us.
Minor disputes have been going on a long, long time. I remember once in the early-mid 90s they locked down the streets of Williamsburg for a night with police cars everywhere because there was a rumor that "the Hispanics" were going to blow up a construction site for public housing because "the Hassids" were getting too many units, or at least so said a cop at the time. (Spoiler: nothing whatsoever happened.)
I am a terribly liberal person in the classical sense and I really wish I could find it in my heart to love these neighbors more, but our world views are very different, and I'm quite sure that the local Hassids find my beliefs at least as deplorable and incomprehensible as I do theirs.
But all that said, I'm for keeping the status quo, even though it's rather against my principles to kowtow to religion.
The US government spends an incredibly huge amount of money on religion when it shouldn't be, and using a tiny bit of that so some neighbor gets to swim who otherwise wouldn't (and these are women who honestly I feel are generally getting the very very short end of the stick in life), well, this just doesn't appear on my radar - particularly if it helps keep the peace.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:14 PM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
For example, one congregation has somehow gotten a Federal emergency siren and runs it twice on Fridays and on other holy days [...]
Surely you have heard of the Bobov/Belz Friday Afternoon Soccer Tournament. Would you have them miss the kickoff?
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:17 AM on June 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Surely you have heard of the Bobov/Belz Friday Afternoon Soccer Tournament. Would you have them miss the kickoff?
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:17 AM on June 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Okay. So if you went to this pool and said "Hello, I want you to have women-only times because it's emotionally and physically safer for women" and they said "right you are, we'll schedule these times as women only" that would be okay, yes?
But if a Hasidic woman goes to this pool and requests it on the basis of her religion, you are against that. The thing is... you either have to say yes to both or no to both. If you say yes to the first but not the second, you are discriminating on the basis of religion.
I don't think you need to say yes to both or no to both, because I think if the implementation were based on the motivation for the accommodation, you could have disparate results.
The the women's-only swim times are created in response to a secular claim, trans women will be allowed access because, as several commenters have pointed out, that's the law in New York state.
But if you accommodate requests from Hasidic women based on their relition, it's quite possible that they would find the presence of trans women in the pool as offensive to their religious reading of what is permissible behavior as the presence of men.
That struck me when I read the argument that declining to establish gender-segregated swim times was the same thing as locking Hasidic women out of the pool. If it turns out that Hasidic women find allowing trans women access to the pool during women-only swim times, are you locking the Hasidic women out if you don't conform to their definition of who should be allowed to take advantage of the accommodation?
That's why I find it a compelling argument when posters have said that it's a good thing to make the accommodation for women-only swimming, and it's a good to thing to make it based on secular, rather than religious arguments.
And having created the accommodation, it's certainly no one's business why any particular woman takes advantage of it. I
posted by layceepee at 9:40 AM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
But if a Hasidic woman goes to this pool and requests it on the basis of her religion, you are against that. The thing is... you either have to say yes to both or no to both. If you say yes to the first but not the second, you are discriminating on the basis of religion.
I don't think you need to say yes to both or no to both, because I think if the implementation were based on the motivation for the accommodation, you could have disparate results.
The the women's-only swim times are created in response to a secular claim, trans women will be allowed access because, as several commenters have pointed out, that's the law in New York state.
But if you accommodate requests from Hasidic women based on their relition, it's quite possible that they would find the presence of trans women in the pool as offensive to their religious reading of what is permissible behavior as the presence of men.
That struck me when I read the argument that declining to establish gender-segregated swim times was the same thing as locking Hasidic women out of the pool. If it turns out that Hasidic women find allowing trans women access to the pool during women-only swim times, are you locking the Hasidic women out if you don't conform to their definition of who should be allowed to take advantage of the accommodation?
That's why I find it a compelling argument when posters have said that it's a good thing to make the accommodation for women-only swimming, and it's a good to thing to make it based on secular, rather than religious arguments.
And having created the accommodation, it's certainly no one's business why any particular woman takes advantage of it. I
posted by layceepee at 9:40 AM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Surely you have heard of the Bobov/Belz Friday Afternoon Soccer Tournament. Would you have them miss the kickoff?
Jokes aside, using a Civil Defense siren for a non-emergency is against federal law for good reason. They're supposed to only be used by the government to indicate that an emergency affecting an entire neighborhood is approaching, happening or over.
I'm floored that the cops haven't put a stop to it. That's appalling. The FCC should get involved.
The Hasidim aren't the only people who live in that neighborhood. If they really need to alert people, they can damned well set up a church-style bell to signal or something similar that isn't the equivalent of pulling a giant fire alarm to freak out the populace.
posted by zarq at 9:56 AM on June 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jokes aside, using a Civil Defense siren for a non-emergency is against federal law for good reason. They're supposed to only be used by the government to indicate that an emergency affecting an entire neighborhood is approaching, happening or over.
I'm floored that the cops haven't put a stop to it. That's appalling. The FCC should get involved.
The Hasidim aren't the only people who live in that neighborhood. If they really need to alert people, they can damned well set up a church-style bell to signal or something similar that isn't the equivalent of pulling a giant fire alarm to freak out the populace.
posted by zarq at 9:56 AM on June 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm floored that the cops haven't put a stop to it.
Same thing in Boro Park and Midwood. The cops really, in a very active and attentive way, do not care.
posted by griphus at 10:15 AM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Same thing in Boro Park and Midwood. The cops really, in a very active and attentive way, do not care.
posted by griphus at 10:15 AM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately the result might be that the alarms will mean nothing to the local population in the event the government actually does need to freak everyone out.
Ugh. Yeah. :(
posted by zarq at 12:38 PM on June 6, 2016
Ugh. Yeah. :(
posted by zarq at 12:38 PM on June 6, 2016
We don't have those alarms in Australia and they sound weirdly interesting to me. I bet someone could make a good FPP about them, hint hint.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:02 PM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:02 PM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I didn't realize the alarms were illegal. I don't know but I'm not sure they would cause so much confusion. Everyone who is used to it would at least subconsciously realize if an alarm went on longer than the Shabbat sirens, or at an unusual time, and if need be could check pretty quickly whether it was the eve of a suspended parking rules holiday or not. Of all the noise issues in my neighborhood (which is also in the thick of the Caribbean festival celebrations) it would not have occurred to me to prioritize this one. I guess I thought of it as a local flavor thing, and I'd certainly be ok with local authorities focusing on landlord violations (by anyone) over this.
posted by Salamandrous at 6:57 PM on June 6, 2016
posted by Salamandrous at 6:57 PM on June 6, 2016
:)
Joe, a brief rundown... They're all over the US and Canada, and are similar to the emergency sirens used in Israel, although there are many makes and models, so the sounds they make vary. Different states use them for different kinds of warnings, but in all cases they're only supposed to be used to alert the public about major emergencies or disasters. For example, they follow the perimeter of the Hawaiian Islands to warn against tsunamis. (Hawaii even has an "Adopt a Siren" program that I linked to in an FPP once.)
On Long Island for many years, all 71 fire departments in Nassau County and all 109 in Suffolk County were still volunteer. Fire Alarm sirens in each town would signal volunteers to come and help. By the 90's only three towns: Garden City, Long Beach and Ronkonkoma did employ some professional firefighters but also still enlisted volunteers. According to the link, by 1999, the fire sirens were being phased out in favor of much quieter pagers, and they probably went to a cell phone call system shortly there after.
posted by zarq at 7:06 PM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Joe, a brief rundown... They're all over the US and Canada, and are similar to the emergency sirens used in Israel, although there are many makes and models, so the sounds they make vary. Different states use them for different kinds of warnings, but in all cases they're only supposed to be used to alert the public about major emergencies or disasters. For example, they follow the perimeter of the Hawaiian Islands to warn against tsunamis. (Hawaii even has an "Adopt a Siren" program that I linked to in an FPP once.)
On Long Island for many years, all 71 fire departments in Nassau County and all 109 in Suffolk County were still volunteer. Fire Alarm sirens in each town would signal volunteers to come and help. By the 90's only three towns: Garden City, Long Beach and Ronkonkoma did employ some professional firefighters but also still enlisted volunteers. According to the link, by 1999, the fire sirens were being phased out in favor of much quieter pagers, and they probably went to a cell phone call system shortly there after.
posted by zarq at 7:06 PM on June 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
According to the link, by 1999, the fire sirens were being phased out in favor of much quieter pagers, and they probably went to a cell phone call system shortly there after.
Huh, I'm just seeing this in my Recent Activity, and I have to chime in. My village on Long Island still has a volunteer fire department, and we still use the sirens. There are two fire houses within hearing distance of my house, thankfully neither close enough nor frequent enough to be a noise problem, but I can certainly hear them.
And they still mark noon with the siren. A couple of loud, deep honks. I went to nursery school right next door to the fire house, so I have sort of fond memories of this. Sometimes I'll be puttering around the house on a weekend and say, "huh, must be noon already." It's sort of nice.
Sirens being used for anything but emergencies / the midday honk seems totally crazy to me.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:03 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huh, I'm just seeing this in my Recent Activity, and I have to chime in. My village on Long Island still has a volunteer fire department, and we still use the sirens. There are two fire houses within hearing distance of my house, thankfully neither close enough nor frequent enough to be a noise problem, but I can certainly hear them.
And they still mark noon with the siren. A couple of loud, deep honks. I went to nursery school right next door to the fire house, so I have sort of fond memories of this. Sometimes I'll be puttering around the house on a weekend and say, "huh, must be noon already." It's sort of nice.
Sirens being used for anything but emergencies / the midday honk seems totally crazy to me.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:03 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
I learned from the NYT article today about this issue that Hasidic men will sometimes use the pool during gender-integrated hours. This was one of my burning questions with the original story, and I'm wondering why it's permitted (by the faith).
posted by epj at 8:50 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by epj at 8:50 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, wearing clothing into the pool is going to cause actual trouble from the pool staff.
posted by GuyZero at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2016
posted by GuyZero at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2016
« Older David Neat's neat, model model blog | Carter/Khomeini Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And this is coming from a hardcore Atheist, by the way.
posted by SansPoint at 7:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]