In normal everyday conversation, when you see somebody ramble on senselessly like

"You can see people dressed in some ways that we don't believe in dressing and we don't believe in our kids dressing and we don't believe in them seeing people (dressed that way)

I think Lavallante is right. The synagogue should frost it's own windows if it doesn't want to be exposed to the real world, instead of the other way around.

Yes, this is bullshit. If the synagogue has a problem with the view, let the synagogue frost its damn windows. If the class members wanted to be hidden from view, why did the frosting come only at the behest of the synagoge.

More importantly, how on earth do these parents keep their kids from seeing people dressed that way? Do they wear blinders when they walk down the street?

Welcome to the world. Not everybody agrees with you, and they don't have to conform to your rules. Get to used to it, because you'll be here a while.

Aerik, ironically, this is even worse in Israel, where the synagogues can't tell people they're anti-Semitic (then they just tell them they're shirking their Jewish identity).

EG, I don't know how it goes in Montreal, but in Israel and New York they do it by retreating into insular neighborhoods. I gather it's better here than it used to be, when ultra-Orthodox people could live in their Brooklyn neighborhoods without ever seeing anyone with Orthodox-unapproved dress.

I could have sworn this was a scene from Porky's, but without the Hebrew school students.

Hey, free market!

If the synagogue doesn't like to look in, it can frost its own windows or pay the gym to do so (which apparently it did). If the gym would rather tell 'em to stuff off, and lose the offer of $$$, then the gym can do so.

If the customers of either location don't like their establishment's decision, they can go to another gym/shul.***

The only thing left to complain about, then, is whether people have any right to want to avoid looking at certain things. I have difficulty with the proposition that they can't WANT certain things, or that they can't attempt to use the market to get them.

***and if it pisses off other folks like us, they can offer the gym money to break its contract and 'unfrost' the windows.

I was running in the Hasidic Jewish section of Williamsburg in a pink running skirt and white tank top several weeks ago when for the third recent time, I have had little boys harass me. I always have the men give me dirty looks, walk in the street, and get shouted at and made fun of (not in English, but I don't need to know the language they are speaking to know that it isn't flattering). I got fed up with it and talked to a woman nearby after yet another boy felt the need to shout at me.

"Oh, they are just children. Children are children."

I replied, "I am a marathon runner, and run all over New York City in very different and diverse neighborhoods, and never encounter this outside of this area."

She floundered and finally said, "Well you dress very different than us. They are not used to seeing people dressed like you."

There are people in the neighborhood who are not dressed like them...this really pissed me off. This is New York City and you have to get used to very different people--from purple mohawks a little further down Bedford Avenue to whatever.

I respect that the center, as a religious organization, has a right to enforce a religious dress code *in its own building* and take steps *in its own building* to further that. The weird thing is why the YMCA would modify its OWN building- I suppose there might be other reasons for this- maybe their members were also complaining about people staring at them. I think of that because the YWCA where I often workout is in a downtown area with windows facing a bus stop. On occasion, people will walk right up to the glass and stare at me or other women who are working out. I would LOVE it if our Y frosted the glass so I could work out without being stared at.

I agree with Sailorman - it's a free market economy. I would have my panties in a bunch if the synagogue had, for example, tried to get an injunction against the gym. But if they offered cash and the gym took it, I say it's kosher.

I live in Montreal, and I heard that the Y at first was not going to frost the windows. But then most of the members decided that it was a good idea, so they did it.

Why is this a problem?

Wait a minute Sailorman! So free market means everyone with money can do whatever they like? The gym I go to has huge windows and people can be seen working out from the outside. If they decided to frost the windows it would look really depressing. Let’s say someone who has a lot of money paid my gym not to let women in at all. This is the only gym at a convenient distance to me and I don’t have money to pay the gym to break their contract wit the rich asshole. Oh well, it’s free market.

"Let’s say someone who has a lot of money paid my gym not to let women in at all."

There is only one gym within walking distance of my house. A few years ago, it was bought by a woman and changed to a women only gym.

Is that unfair too, or just the free market at work?

Carefull observers will have noticed that the question of anti-semitism didn't come into this until Aerik reflexively tried to preemtively block any criticism with his sarcastic question, "After all, we can't stand up for a principle against a Jew and seem antisemitic or at least anti-religions, can we?" Actually, it's easy to criticize what happened at the Y without jumping immediately to reacting to it as a "jewish" problem. I wonder what "the jews" have done to Aerik to make him so touchy.

For the uninitiated, there are numerous types of Jews. In most Jewish sects, there is no central ruling authority, so the only one who gets to tell you whether your beliefs are Jewish is you yourself, or God, if you believe in that entity. For instance, I am a Humanistic Jew. I don't believe in gods or anything supernatural, but I still rightfully identify as Jewish.

If you take a poll of people who identify themselves as Jews, you'll find that most of them hold progessive ideologies. A higher percentage of Jews support same-sex marriage rights than people of any other religious identity. In fact, the percentage of Jews who support same-sex marriage rights has polled higher than the number of homosexuals who support those rights. Go figure. Likewise, if you were to poll Jews in this country regarding their feelings about the acceptability of women appearing in workout gear, I'm sure that you'd find that the vast majority would find nothing wrong with it.

This isn't a Jewish problem. It's an Ultra-orthodox Jewish problem. If you want to avoid being anti-semitic, then all you have to do is make your critique a bit more specific than the jews in general. I can criticize the Hassids for their treatment of women, without being anti-semitic, just as I can criticize Jack Abramoff for his corruption, without being anti-semitic.

Regarding the question of whether the window frosting was a travesty, I believe it is true that the management at Y was happy to have their windows frosted, because a fair proportion of their members were in favor of it. My gym, 24-hour fitness, has frosted windows, not because they're afraid that young men seeing sexy bodies in motion might remind them that their genitals exist, but because befor the windows were frosted, "strange men" tended to linger by the windows, possibly trying to identify women who were working out alone, to mark them for later harassment, or worse.

Had I been a more careful observer, I might have noticed my misspelling. Sorry.

I don't have any problem criticizing the free market economy, sailorman. I've never considered it to be a particularly just system, and I see no reason to start now. What they synagogue did may be legal, but that doesn't mean it's moral or non-sexist.

“There is only one gym within walking distance of my house. A few years ago, it was bought by a woman and changed to a women only gym.�

Yep, as a matter of fact it is. I would have wounld that very annoying because I like to work out with my boyfriend. Now it would have been in addition very offensive if in addition they had said “Men can’t come here because men come here t ogle women�.

So should we close down all the Curves gyms (women only) if there are no mixed gender gyms in the area? That seems a little bizarre. A lot bizarre, actually.

Justin - Thanks for the permission to rage against Hasidim and/or ultra-Orthodox Jewry and not be an anti-semite, but I'm going to have to turn you down on that one.

Being tolerant towards the intolerant is hard. But being tolerant towards those who agree with you doesn't exactly win you any gold stars. Hasidim are people too, and I think that *asking* a gym to frost its windows and *paying* for it is a respectful way to resolve community differences.

Yes, it would be easier if they would just drop their stupid, old fashined, unreasonable, immoral, misogynistic views. You know, if THEY were just like US, but dressed kind of cute like the Amish. But as they're not, this seems like a peaceful solution to me.

Well, I think the free market has some issues, There are instances where the results of a free market are so horrible that it makes a lot of sense to override them.

I just don't think that frosted windows fall in that category. Gyms are businesses; they're relatively fungible; they are common... there are all sorts of reasons which a gym might elect to make this call.

I don't think the gym is even being necessarily antifeminist. We don't even know what they did with the cash. What's better: taking the money and adding childcare programs for poor women, or refusing the cash? And so on.

Personally, what I would find REALLY odious is if someone were trying to impose their moral views on someone else, rather than convince them or negotiate with them.

Not, of course, that any feminists would espouse that approach. And I think what the shul did is great, because they're not imposing--they're asking. Isn't that the best solution?

“So should we close down all the Curves gyms (women only) if there are no mixed gender gyms in the area?� Nope. That’s not at all what I said. I said I would be annoyed if they turned the gym into a women only gym. I didn’t say they should close down the gym. But that would only be comparable to this case if they had said men can’t come here because we don’t want to see men’s bodies because they are distracting or because men have cooties.

DT, If you don’t think what the director of the yeshiva did is sexist that doesn’t leave anything to discuss. I know the Hassidim are people too, I mean so are the Taliban. (No, I am not saying they are nearly as bad as the Taliban, just in case anybody was going to remind me that.)

Justin, I agree with you. I very much sympathize with that because I hate how people always start attacking Muslim in general if they are pissed off at something that Osama Ben Laden did. But I think there is a reason why people might make a comment such as Aerik’s. There is precedent on being called anti-Semitic for criticizing a Jewish person, entity, etc. It brings to mind that very recently Abe Foxman called Amnesty International’s report on Israel-Hezbollah war, “borderline anti-Semitic�. And I don’t know if you remember the incident with Ken Livingstone but I am not gonna go into the details of that.

In my opinion, "asking" was not the best solution. The best solution would be for the synagogue to frost its own windows. Nobody has presented any compelling reason why they couldn't.

And Ys aren't businesses. They're not-for-profits.

Asking that, in and of itself is offensive. Imagine a situation where are walking down the street and some family walks up to you and asks you cover your hair because this is not what their children are supposed to be seeing. And if they offer to pay for your headscarf, does that make it less offensive?

Word, sojourner.

Soujourner - based on other comments you've made, I'm suprised to see you write "If you don’t think what the director of the yeshiva did is sexist that doesn’t leave anything to discuss." Aren't we (both) on the side that believes in discussion and exchange of ideas? That seems a little harsh, especially in a case that doesn't involve really awful things (my definition is murder, rape, etc.).

So I ask: what should the synagogue have done? Frosted their own windows? That seems like the obvious solution to me, and I have no idea why they didn't. But let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that a good reason existed. Then what should they have done?

The article itself mentions that the windows had been covered with drapes, but that the drapes needed to be replaced. So it would seem that it isn't that dramatic a change, or that big an issue.

I guess I'm suprised at the tone of the response. Here you have an institution that's trying to resolve a difference in opinion civily, and there's no support for that. Is there really no room for dissenting opinions?

Can I be a feminist and still accept that someone else isn't? Or that someone else believes in women's rights from a legal standpoint but has a religious problem with what they consider immodest dress?

DT, no, in my mind there is no support for an institution putting any kind of pressure on the outside world to cater to their anti-feminist biases. I see no reason to give any benefit of the doubt to the synagogue, but if they couldn't frost their own windows? Then they can cover them with black construction paper, or turn all chairs to face away from the windows, or take responsibility for their own unwanted sexual urges. Expecting others to take that responsibility for them is beyond the pale, as far as I'm concerned. I see nothing civil in the view that because one religious group is troubled by the sight of women, the women themselves have to be covered up.

What if I, as an atheist, demanded that the church outside my window cover up its cross, because it offended me and generated unwanted spiritual thoughts? Would my request be a "civil" attempt to resolve dissenting opinions? What if I were a racist, and offended by the sight of an ACLU office?

I'm an atheist, and every damn day I look at crosses. And yet I manage to soldier on under that great burden. I'm a feminist, and everyday I have to look at misogynist ads. Somehow, I carry on.

It's up to religious people to bear the burden of their religion; they are the ones who opted to take it on. It's not up to the rest of us.

Ok - I see a lot of issues being conflated here.
The first is that 2 neighbors - the synagogue and the Y - had a difference they wished to resolve. Yes, one party instigated it, but then, that's how most differences start. The Y elected to take the money offered to frost the windows. I am going to leap to the conclusion that they did so without polling their membership. But if that Y works like the one I got to, there is a Board of Trustees with member representation that had to sign off on this deal. What this is an example of is good neighborly conduct by both parties.
Now there is a second issue, which is WHY the synagogue had an issue with the Y - a why that had it's roots in the religious mores of the congregation. Is ultra-orthodox Judaism sexist? Absolutely. Do I find those kinds of religious beliefs insulting & offensive? YES! Is being offended by someone else’s' beliefs a good enough reason to be antagonistic towards a request they make by itself? NO!
Third issue is that there are Y members unhappy about the resolution. They are petitioning for a different resolution. Sounds reasonable to me, and there probably is a next solution out there in which everyone is equally unhappy enough about it that it will be an end to the matter.

"Is being offended by someone else’s' beliefs a good enough reason to be antagonistic towards a request they make by itself? NO!"

See, here's where I disagree. If the request they're making is rooted in those beliefs, I don't see why not at all.

EG - Sorry I wasn't clear. To me, frosting the synagogue's own damn windows is so obvious a solution, I imagine there was some reason they couldn't. IF that was the case (they were, for some reason, unfrostable), would you still be so opposed to their request? That's what I meant to ask.

As for you and the church: I don't know. On one hand, it's not as if atheism prohibits looking at crosses, as far as I know. Orthodox Judaism expressly prohibits looking at scantily clad women. Feminists may dislike mysoginistic ads (I know I do!), but most of do not believe that a supreme deity is pissed at us for doing so (perhaps we believe said deity is pissed at the maker of the ad, but that's not at all the same thing). So your analogy doesn't hold.

On the other hand, it's not quite fair - atheism doesn't have strict prohibitions (again, correct me if I'm wrong), so there will never be perfect parallels between the rights of religious people and the rights of atheists. I don't mean to imply that atheists don't ahve rights, because they do. That's why I'm in favor of a pledge of allegiance without a mention of God.

dagnymeetsassisi - I see your point, but I don't agree with all of it. I try to limit myself to being offended by actions, and not beliefs. If someone genuinely believes that God wants them not to look at women's bodies... I don't really understand it, but I don't know if I gain anything by being offended.

I just don't see these issues as so black and white. And I do see a value in being tolerant towards those I consider intolerant.

There is a post above saying that the majority of the members wanted the windows frosted. It's possible that the Y originally balked but then when it became clear that this was popular with the members, saw this as a way to get the windows frosted at no cost to them.

I work out in a very large athletic facility that includes a small women-only area with machines and free weights. It is an enclosed room with one wall of frosted windows. The windows were frosted in stripes, presumably to be aesthetically pleasing while providing good coverage against peeping eyes. There are Muslim women in my community (who wear hijab) who are uncomfortable working out there in typical US workout wear because a man could walk by and peek in through the small non-frosted stripes. I prefer the women's gym myself even though I am a Jew who leans toward the Reconstructionist movement, one that has no prohibition on women showing skin. I'm just more comfortable in the company of only women.

When I lived in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, I belonged to a JCC that had a women's area, a men's area, and a coed area. The men's area had a sauna and massage therapy available. The women's area was only open from 10 am - 2 pm Sunday - Friday. It offered aerobics classes and yoga. It did have child care. I could never work out there because I worked from 8-4. I went in the evenings to the coed workout area with my then-partner. We were the only two women there most evenings. Sometimes there would be another, often with a long skirt over her workout clothes. My ex and I got a lot of funny looks for daring to dress like the men even though the JCC was open for membership to all people, not just Jews, and supposedly patronized by Jews of different affiliations. We thought we'd be okay there because the membership director did not bat an eye when we went in, two women, and asked for a family membership. We did not renew our membership after the first year. It had nothing to do with discomfort there as lesbians, but as women. I just didn't grow up in that kind of environment, and my ex-partner grew up Catholic and converted, so neither of us was prepared for the ostracism. That may also be why I feel so much more comfortable in the women's gym at my athletic facility today.

"What if I, as an atheist, demanded that the church outside my window cover up its cross, because it offended me and generated unwanted spiritual thoughts?" - EG

Were demands made? It sounded more like a negotiation to me. Evidently the Y was offerred what it considerred fair compensation for the request.

"Imagine a situation where are walking down the street and some family walks up to you and asks you cover your hair because this is not what their children are supposed to be seeing. And if they offer to pay for your headscarf, does that make it less offensive?" - sojourner

I don't see how that is offensive. It is a pain in the ass to be stopped on the street for any reason, and I don't know why anyone would accept this supposed deal unless they wanted a headscarf in the first place, but it isn't offensive. Street vendors offer me things all the time, and they expect me to pay for them!!! Is this a pain? Yes. Is this annoying? Yes. Is this offensive? No.

I agree that the synagogue was out of line here, but if it's true that a majority of the members prefer the privacy of the frosted windows, it's a win-win situation. I'm a little self conscious when I exercise (a 19 year old college student shouldn't look like a 13 year-old with a beard), and would love it if my gym would frost the windows

I'm having a real problem with how this issue is being framed.

I live in Montreal and this is a neighborhood that I frequent regularily. It is the best example of diversity I have ever seen. I find it very problematic that this issues is becoming sensationalized in the way it is. Isn't this the kind of behavior that we often rage against in regards to feminism? And yet, since we can "Other" the Hassadim, that makes it alright.

It is clear to me that a number of commentators didn't read the link to the CANOE news page in its entirety. Two points stand out clearly for me. One, those windows had been covered by curtains for 10 years. Two, the majority of the YMCA goers approved of this move.

In all honesty, I think that Renee Lavaillante is making an issue out of it that is outside the pervue of the actual situation. I cannot speak to her motivations, but I find her remarks specious. I can speak to this since I had a good friend who lived on the third floor across the street from the Y and the sinagogue. When Renee frames the discussion as a "sunlight" issue, she is being disingenuous. As she says, "the issue isn't sunlight or the view. It's the principle." In fact, this is the only way she could justify her remarks, because the only thing between the two buildings is a small, not necessarily aesthetically pleasing, alley. So much for the view. Furthermore, the Sinagogue is large enough to encompass most of the view out of the back of the second-story work-out room. There is no view and the sunlight would not really be affected by the window frosting. It would still get in--frosting is translucent! To me, her petition is disengenuous, and especially problematic given how well the neighborhood has build a very strong and vibrant community out of the most diverse population I have seen, anywhere. period.

This neighborhood is known as the "mile-end." The demographic of it includes portuguese and italian immigrants, the hassidim, a large lesbian population, artists, students and Quebecers. When we were looking for an apartment this September, this was the only neighborhood we looked, and we couldn't find a place because everyone wants to live there. The community works well together, and everyone gets along swimmingly. It is very refreshing to see lesbians walking around hand in hand alongside Hassadim and neither group batting an eye.

Which is why I find the Hassadim bashing in the comments problematic. However insular the community is in New York or other places, the community in Montreal is very open and just want to do their own thing. Indeed, we even looked at an apartment owned by a hassadim and it was not at all an issue for us that we went as soon as we could so that he wouldn't have to show the place on the Sabbath, which was later that evening. This is not an issue, given that I have rescheduled many meetings due to my Friday ritual--drop in basketball. To label all hassadim in the same way is exactly what third wave feminism is against: homogenization.

Many feminist ethics are about context, situatedness, and community building. This is what I find problematic about Renee's protest. How does this help dialogue within a vibrant and communicative neighborhood? To frame the issue as equivalent to one of veiling is problematic. The Y was covering it anyway and at some point would have had to change the curtains. I think it shows great forthought on the part of the Hassidic community to offer to pay that would work out for most. It seems to me they were addressing a community issue with fortrightness. Having sat on the third floor across the street hanging out, I had often wondered what the women working out thought about those in the apartment and on the very busy street corner being able to see them work out.

Anyway, I find this an issue of respect. I respect the decision of the Hassidim and the majority of Y-goers because the Hassadim have been so respectful of their community. This is a very important corner of the city for the Italian Christian community, who parade on Easter, and for other things like St. Jean Baptiste, where the whole street of St. Viatur is blocked off for the whole day and is wall to wall with drunk revellers. The fact is, most in the community allow each other to celebrate in their own ways. And everyone gets along. Except, apparently, 100 people who want to assert some "principle" ignoring the community that they either live or work out in. I don't claim to speak to their reasons or justifications, but I find it unfortunate that in a community that I described above, they are choosing a "petition" route instead of somehow organizing a meeting with the parties involved. Discussions are what build communities, not petition waving and sensationalism.

The alterations to the windows will go through, the bulk of the community will be happy, and things will return to their peaceful normality--which I am sure it presently still is, on the street. And I, for one, am glad.

Which is why I find the Hassadim bashing in the comments problematic. However insular the community is in New York or other places, the community in Montreal is very open and just want to do their own thing.

Apparently, it's not open enough to avoid trying to claim a right not to be offended.

I want to do a whole post about this later, but for now let me just say that it's best to divide this issue into several parts:

1. Apparently, the YMCA's members largely approved the frosting. If they did, then from a consequential perspective no harm was done.

2. That the Hassidim offered to pay doesn't diminish their sexism. The difference between paying and coercing is in the means; but what matters here is the ends. It's perfectly legal and legitimate for anti-abortion groups to buy out buildings with abortion clinics and then evict the clinics. The same applies to protesting with pictures of dismembered fetuses. The problem pro-choicers have with these tactics isn't the means, but the ends. Why should the synagogue/YMCA situation be any different?

3. The Jewish angle is a complete red herring. Feministing is a blog that deals with news stories more than generalities and abstractions. As such, the standard is to refer to offenders with specific terms - "a Southern Baptist church," "a Hasidic synagogue," "Girls Gone Wild." If any anti-Semitism were present here, I'd be commenting prolifically with jokes about the International Jewish Conspiracy (motto: if we could fake the Holocaust, there's nothing we can't do).

Good comment Dharmaserf.

I too live in Montreal, and religious conflict is practically unheard of here.

"It's possible that the Y originally balked but then when it became clear that this was popular with the members, saw this as a way to get the windows frosted at no cost to them."

From what I've heard, this is exactly what happened. The widows were covered by drapes, as the members of the Y wished them to be. The drapes were taken down as they needed to be replaced. Before they were replaced, the Hasidic group offered to have the windows frosted, as they did not wish the children to see the women exercising.

The Y advised the members of the offer.

The majority of them decided that since the windows were going to be re-covered anyway, may as well let the synagogue pay for the frosted windows, which are more pleasing to the eye than the drapes and would allow sunlight in.

A minority wanted to leave the windows uncovered to spite the synagogue, and to create a conflict where there was none. They were voted down, and their comments now are just sour grapes.

The windows were frosted because the members happily accepted the synagogue's offer, not because they were coerced.

"Apparently, it's not open enough to avoid trying to claim a right not to be offended."

They never claimed a right not to be offended. They didn't demand that the windows be frosted. They requested it, and their request was granted.

That's generally how we do things up here; compromise instead of conflict.

"The problem pro-choicers have with these tactics isn't the means, but the ends. Why should the synagogue/YMCA situation be any different?"

The difference is that in this case, the final result is one that was desired by the members of the Y. I don't think pro-choicers desire for abortion clinics to be closed.

I think this is a better analogy:

My neighbor comes to me and says "Your lawn and garden look like shit. I'm tired of looking at it. I'm gonna pay my gardner to come and take care of it for you. Whaddya say?"

I wish I had the time or money to take care of it myself, but I don't. I could tell my neighbor to go to hell, and leave the lawn a mess, but neither of us get what we want, and now there is a tension between us. Or I could accept his offer, get the nice lawn I want, and think he's a sucker for paying for it.

So why would I refuse his request, however impolite it was?

I am offended by certain types of dress. Among dress I find offensive are wearing prominent crosses, dressing in long black robes with white collars, wearing veils by women, wearing black hats with long black coats, wearing circular headdress by men of various religions. I could go on and on.

Another problem in Canada is the acceptance of religious laws such as in marriage.

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ffe5af03ed585256ae6005379c9/ffda378e9311d87685257077005764cb!OpenDocument

"In the religious forum to which Shinaz voluntarily submitted, she found herself up against a potentially very exploitative wall. Orthodox Jewish women have found themselves in that position for decades. The Canadian state allows for civil divorce with all of its corollary relief (support, custody etc.). Orthodox Jewish law (the form of religious law that governs family law matters in Israel) demands that, if an Orthodox woman also wants to be released to remarry or to bear future children that would not be bastards (mamzarim) in Jewish law, she must go through a religious procedure to do so. Until she gets a Jewish bill of divorce -- known as a gett -- she is a bound woman, an agunah -- with potentially dire consequences associated with both Jewish law and Israel. The odd Jewish husband has long been exploiting this vulnerability by threatening to withhold the gett unless the wife, who is civilly divorced, agrees to forgo a long list of civil rights that she has already acquired (custody of the children, child support etc.) or is in the clear position to acquire according to Canadian law. I should state that this exploitation by a small number of Jewish men is also a thorn in the side of both Orthodox Judaism and the state of Israel."

by Prof. Susan Drummond.

"Another problem in Canada is the acceptance of religious laws such as in marriage."

I don't see the problem.

These women are voluntarily declining the rights granted to them in order to adhere to their religion. As an athiest it seems silly and self-destructive, but many aspects of religion seem silly and self-destructive to me.

In Canada, freedom of religion guarantees people the right to do any number of silly things in the name of their religion.

Are you suggesting that the Canadian government should step in and force these women to accept these rights against their will, and make them violate their voluntarily held religious beliefs?

sojourner wrote:
Asking that, in and of itself is offensive. Imagine a situation where are walking down the street and some family walks up to you and asks you cover your hair because this is not what their children are supposed to be seeing. And if they offer to pay for your headscarf, does that make it less offensive?

Spot on.

sojourner wrote: Asking that, in and of itself is offensive. Imagine a situation where are walking down the street and some family walks up to you and asks you cover your hair because this is not what their children are supposed to be seeing. And if they offer to pay for your headscarf, does that make it less offensive?

Of COURSE you can think of a hypothetical in which asking someone to accommodate you would be considered offensive. So can I--though I won't waste my time, since someone came up with a nice "messy lawn" example, above.

So what?

Your hypothetical isn't this situation. The question is whether this is offensive, not whether something else would be offensive. I'm wondering whether you changed the subject because this particular situation isn't especially easy to attack.

These types of negotiations are common. I know folks who have negotiated with churches to ring their bells less; who have informed neighbors they could hear them having sex (personal, much?), who have done pretty much everything under the sun.

So long as it is phrased in a manner that allows one party to say "no", I see nothing wrong with it per se.

I think perhaps you dislike the hasidic philosophy as being antifeminist, so you are taking the position that you should oppose them even when they act politely. This is a grave mistake.

There are lots of folks in the world with whom we disagree. Fundies, supremacists, etc. While it might be nice to have them all magically change their views, this is not going to happen overnight--and certainly not merely because you insult them. The best thing we can start with is a polite interaction based on mutual communication.

You dislike them because they hold strict, immutable views which are anathema to your beliefs. Yet many here are acting like fundamentalists in their rejection of polite discourse in favor of condemnation. This is the same tactic which we decry in other situations. Let's not be such hypocrites.

Wow! I am not gonna have time to read all these comments but, I read this one: “But of course that's not what is happening here, is it?� in response to my post. Sailorman, my point was that the too situation are very similar: A family on the street asking me to cover my hair and offering to pay for my headscarf and the school director offering to pay to frost the windows, because the boys shouldn’t see sweaty women in shorts. If you don’t see the similarity there isn’t anything I can do to help you.

The “asking� is offensive. Whether or not many of the Y’s patrons thought it was ok does not change that fact.

What the school did was sexist, I think we should be able to criticize that regardless of what we think of the Hassidim (I generally don’t think of the Hassidim, they don’t live in my town, I don’t ever see them, I don’t have to think about them) which I think is not the subject of this post.

And with that I am outa here!

Of course I can see the similarity. I can also see the differences. And because your example is so different from THIS example, it leads to a different conclusion.

Do you see those situations as identical? Do you not see the distinction between, say, negotiating with a random passerby on a public street, versus the owners of two permanent, expensive, and fixed properties negotiating?

I really don't want to waste an inordinate amount of time on your example, mostly because it's a bad hypothetical. So perhaps we can go back to the actual issue? Or are you "outta here" for good, in which case I won't waste my time?

there is something i'm not understanding about this story. if the windows had drapes on them, how could the boys in the school see in the windows?

if the drapes were left open, then i don't understand how they are relevant.

What the school did was sexist

That's not necessarily true. If the majority of the women wanted it anyway, then the school simply let a pernicious group raise it as an issue. That's not a problem; it doesn't make sense to claim it should've made an effort to do the opposite of what the synagogue wanted.

I don't think that it's much of an issue at all. I don't think that the Y should have taken radical precautions like frosting the windows. And what's wrong with a person checking out another person working out. I wouldn't mind if I was excersing (someone please shoot me if I do) and a woman was checking me out. In fact, I would be quite flattered because no woman has looking at me in a sexually appealing way before. I do believe that we have to tolerate the intolrent, no matter how agitatiing they may be.

DT, that's an argument I will never buy. I do not accept that because religious people do not accept ultimate responsibility for the rules that guide their behavior and beliefs, but instead ascribe it to an entity I see no reason to believe exists, that their beliefs and feelings are somehow more precious, more intense, less able to tolerate injury than mine. I find it, in fact, to be quite an insulting assumption on the part of the religious that their Christianity/Judaism/whatever is an integral part of their identity and a vital core to their being and therefore they have the right to expect that others will adjust to their needs, but that my feminism is somehow less integral, less vital, less necessary, and so I should just suck it up.

If the synagogue's windows were unfrostable, I would direct them to the cheap, collapsible screens of the sort one can buy in Chinatown (at least in Chinatown in NYC). Or again, to black paper. Or curtains. Or, as the prohibition is against them looking at scantily clad women, they could learn to govern their eyes.

As to "demand" vs. "request": a sexist request becomes no less sexist for adding the words "Please, and we'll give you some money, if you would be so kind."

"As to "demand" vs. "request": a sexist request becomes no less sexist for adding the words "Please, and we'll give you some money, if you would be so kind.""

Sure, EG. But as the majority of the women wanted the windows covered (they didn't like being watched while exercising), what would have been the point of refusing the synagogue's offer?

I'm not sure where you're getting "the majority" from, RM. The article says "many." "Many" is a pretty vague word--it's not at all synonymous with "the majority."

"I'm not sure where you're getting "the majority" from, RM"

I live in Montreal. I'm getting it from the local newscasts and newspapers.

It was the same majority who had asked for the windows to be covered by the curtains in the first place. It happened last February, and it was taken care of quickly and neighbourly. It's a non-issue that the vocal minority are trying to stir up again.

So again, what would have been the point of refusing the synagogue's offer?

"I'm an atheist, and every damn day I look at crosses. And yet I manage to soldier on under that great burden. I'm a feminist, and everyday I have to look at misogynist ads. Somehow, I carry on."

Best. Comment. Ever. :)

Thanks, EJ! Damn, I've missed you!

If that's the case, RM, what with the drapes and all, then the bulk of my complaint remains with the synagogue. Why do religious people think they have the right to inflict their prejudices on the world around them? If they had a problem, why did they "need" to bring it to the Y's attention? Why not by drapes for their own damn windows?

Are most of the posters decrying the Y's decision from the US?

If so, I think we may have a cultural difference at play here. Though many people on both sides of the border are under the impression that our two populations are extremely similar, in fact there are many values on which we differ.

Canadians' attitude toward religion and culture -- which is institutionalised in multiculturalism policy -- is to encourage various cultural communities to maintain their practices and beliefs insofar as they do not inhibit my ability to enjoy my freedoms as granted by the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. So there is, to begin with, a difference in how the request of the Hassid community would have been received here as opposed to in the US.

The book Fire & Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values is a much better source of enlightenment on the subject of differing values than I am, though.