Women’s hours at Athletic Centre serve an important purpose
(Re: “AC’s women only hours to continue despite protest,” 26 November 2001.)
I would like to respond to the article in Monday’s Varsity about the women’s only hours at the Athletics Centre (AC). I work at the AC and I find the women’s only hours a welcome and well-appreciated part of our programming. I do sympathize with the guys, but I think they shouldn’t complain about it continually.
The weight room [newly renamed the Strength Conditioning Centre (SCC)] is a space in the AC that is subject to programming, just like the field house, the pools and the gyms.
I don’t think it is totally unreasonable to program a time for women to familiarize themselves with the SCC and become more comfortable in it.
That is what the women’s only hours are for.
Because of religious or cultural beliefs, some women need to work out with only women. In addition, women who feel intimidated by the men in the weight room prefer to use the weight room during those hours.
I myself only started using the weight room a little over a year ago, because I felt intimidated by the guys who work out in there. The first time I went in was during women’s only hour and now I feel comfortable and confident to go in at any time to work out, so I totally understand and appreciate women’s hour and why there is a need for it.
The guys should stop complaining about it and merely schedule their workouts around it like the pick-up basketball and pool schedules. There is also a neuromuscular conditioning class that closes the weight room two hours a week, and all members must work around that.
For so many years the users of the weight room have been predominately male, and these hours seek to encourage women to use the weight room to promote their health and well-being, which is what the Faculty of Physical Education and Health is all about.
So if seven hours out 92 possible working out hours a week in the weight room is designated to women, so be it.
Nadine K. Mohammed
A few children and an education: you should be able to have both
(Re: “Abortion posters spark debate,” 19 November 2001.)
I can’t help but respond to your recent article covering the “Question Abortion” flyers and seminar. Firstly, let me say that I am a student at the University of Toronto. I have two children, one six years old and the other nine months. Secondly (without jumping on the proverbial bandwagon), I have a few ideas about this issue of pro-choice vs. pro-life. I won’t bore you with the pros and cons. However, I must point out how pleased I am to see an article in your paper even talking about the issue. Up until now, we have been forced to discuss this issue within the confines of family planning clinics or on first floor Sid Smith bathroom walls (which are painted over quite quickly after opening arguments are made).
We must remind ourselves that our society is evolving out of a public life which is represented by men—a “man’s world.” This is changing, but with change comes some friction. How we handle this friction is important. We must be honest here and say, as the song goes, “People are still having sex.” The main concern here is that people are having sex while not protecting themselves. (Or, as in my case, sometimes even the most reliable contraception fails.)
With the pregnant 19-year-old girl who is away from home for the first time, and the socially inept and paternally irresponsible boy, we have a dilemma. The problem would seem obvious—that the girl is pregnant. But dig deeper and one finds a more destructive problem: a boy (and a girl) raised in a “man’s world.” It is a world that has told him that his needs come first, even at the expense of others, particularly girls and perhaps even his own offspring. Our system is set up this way.
Five years ago, when I started university, I had a heck of a time just getting in contact with the Family Care Advisor for information on how to get some sort of support handling my studies and a newborn. The Family Care Advisor was unapproachable and just plain unavailable, there was only one phone number which was never answered and no website of any sort. This problem no doubt added to my own feeling— I “can’t do [school] with a kid.” Thank goodness, it is different now. The Family Care office is quite well developed. But in other arenas of the university, unfortunately, old attitudes continue. The trick is to not be controlled by fear of failure or the idea that you just can’t do it with a kid. The latter is just complete nonsense. And anyone who believes it is just holding on to old ideals, eg. that it’s a man’s world and there is no social support for a woman who is studying and finds herself pregnant. By getting our heads out of the sand we can further explore this problem and find solutions to it without heading into social disaster.
I congratulate the Varsity for even addressing the “Question Abortion” flyers and seminar and applaud you for bringing it out in the open for everyone to read and perhaps discuss further.
Lisa Munsterhjelm
Swords are designed to kill people, too
(Re: Hart House Rifle Range closure.)
Swords were designed to kill people, so no fencing on campus? After all, knives are the most popular weapon in Canadian murders. Clubs were designed to cave in skulls, so no baseball? After all, baseball bats are sometimes used to hurt/kill people. Martial arts were designed as a self-defense for unarmed peasents. So, no Karate/Judo/Aikido/etc on campus, since fists are used to hurt and kill people?
If you can tell the differences between a machete and a fencing epee, between a caveman club and a baseball bat, between Aikido and a barroom brawl, why not the difference between an Olympic target pistol and a machine gun? Sounds like an acute case of “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts!”
Damian Kanarek
The Varsity has received many letters regarding this issue. Regrettably, we can’t print them all.
Slean’s gender inexplicably questioned
(Re: “The Slean, mean singin’ machine returns to Hart House,” 22 November 2001)
While Sarah Slean’s talent was never in question, her gender was—at least according to the Varsity—who mistakenly referred to her as “U of T alumnus.” That’s “alumna,” Ms. Walczak.
Paul Schreiber
ed: Please pardon the error. We hadn’t realized that alumnus is a gender specific term. (Also please note: the Varsity refers to female thespians as actors (not actresses) and, in brazen contradiction of accepted grammar, the plural “they” is sometimes used in place of “he” or “she.”)
