Weight room attire questionable
Dear Editors,
It was a typical Thursday night: bodies were sweating around me, liquid was flowing down my throat, music was playing in my ears.
When she walked in, I assumed that she had gotten lost on her way to Stages. But, as the minutes ed, I realized she was there to stay. Then a few other girls came in. I thought that they might have taken a wrong turn on their way to Stages too, but they did not leave either.
After a while, I started to worry that maybe I was the one who was lost. As it turns out, I was not. Apparently, I missed the memo about the new dress code for girls in the PEC weight room: halter tops, mini-spandex shorts, and cleavage—lots of cleavage.
I realize that the cardio room has had a similar dress code in effect for some time now, but I think that it is creating more of an impact in the weight room. Let me explain. In the cardio room, girls are more or less standing up straight (save the girls on the bikes). While in the weight room, girls get to bend sideways, backwards, and oh yes, forward—the ultimate cleavage-revealing pose.
I am lucky that I have not been kicked out of the weight room, since my large grey t-shirt and loose-fitting shorts are clearly in violation of the new policy. I do not like breaking rules, but there are two reasons why I have been unable to change my attire. First, if I wear my one and only halter-top to the gym, I will have nothing left to wear to Stages. Wearing the same sweaty gym shirt to Stages would be like putting on a wet bathing suit—no thanks.
Second, even if I did wear my one and only halter-top, it is not the right kind. It seems that the halter-tops worn in the weight room have some sort of chest-magnet that attracts all eyes to it. I have been thinking about installing a chest-magnet in my halter-top so I can wear it to the weight room, but I cannot find a store in Kingston that sells such an item. I will keep looking.
In the meantime, I have some suggestions to help complete the weight room’s transformation into a quasi-Stages.
First, there needs to be an $8 cover. Unless you get a stamp.
Second, the weight room needs a bouncer. The PEC employees in the red jerseys can double as bouncers to enforce the dress code. I only ask that they give me an extended grace period to find the magnet I need for my halter-top.
Third, it would be nice to have a glass of water—with three ice cubes—served to me while I rest between sets. Perhaps the TAPS servers can fill this role.
Fourth, the lights should be dimmed. We all look better in a poorly-lit room anyway.
Fifth, the weight room needs a DJ. In anticipation of disputes over what music to play, I suggest that the weight room gets broken up into four smaller rooms, each playing a different genre. I guess we will now need four DJs.
Finally, there needs to be some dancing. Since there is not enough room for a dance floor, we should dance from the benches over to the weight racks. Just no grinding please.
Heather Campbell
ArtSci ’06
ability in AMS lacking
Dear Editors,
RE: “Plamondon fifth AMS staffer to resign” (Journal, Feb. 10, 2006).
It came as little surprise to learn of the fifth resignation of an AMS senior staff member this year; however, what continues to be a source of puzzlement is the lack of ability on the part of this year’s executive, clique-crackers RHM. Given the extremely high number of applicants for AMS Council positions last year, it should be expected (and this has for the most part been proven), that the individuals in question are of an extremely high calibre; indeed, many senior staff have worked their way up both the corporate and governance spheres of the society over the course of their time at Queen’s, acquiring valuable career experience while providing an unparalleled level of service and representation to students. Why then, would three officers, a director, and now a commissioner choose to depart prematurely from their coveted positions?
The lack of ability and leadership is most evident in the attitude of RHM towards those who have left. Mr. Rabidoux, when is it ever a situation in which it “get[s] to a point where it’s better if they go than if they stay?” This suggests that it was only a matter of time before Mr. Plamondon was going to resign, and that he never enjoyed the confidence of you and your executive. I am left to wonder if perhaps in their zealousness to rid the AMS of a perceived “clique,” RHM has failed in their executive role to provide the atmosphere of and teamwork that is crucial to governmental organizations. How could anyone be expected to think and act positively in their role of serving students if those whose job it is to guide, encourage and even defend them systemically undermine their efforts?
While it is not uncommon for one or two individuals to resign every year from these jobs for personal reasons relating to academics or other aspects of their already-busy student lifestyles, when five of the 14 original staff hired last spring make that decision, surely there must be some serious factors internal to the workplace which have caused this to happen. Since the executive officers of any organization are ultimately responsible for the entire actions of their staff, I feel that Queen’s students are owed an explanation as to why over a third of the highest positions are now vacated.
John Hamilton
ArtSci ’08
Kayssi ‘promotes violence-free dialogue’
Dear Editors,
RE: “Freedom of speech no justification for cartoons” (Journal, Feb. 10, 2006).
Congratulations to Ahmed Kayssi for his refreshingly rational take on what has become an explosive issue all over the world. While many may not agree with his take on the limits of free speech in the media, Kayssi is succinct and honest in his efforts to portray his perspective of Islam and in turn promotes violence-free dialogue. I applaud him.
Allison Cross
ArtSci ’05
Conflicting views of depicting Prophet confusing
Dear Editors,
RE: “Freedom of speech not the issue” (Journal, Feb. 14, 2006), “Freedom of speech no justification for cartoons” (Journal, Feb. 10, 2006).
The Journal wrote on Feb. 14 that “in Islam, it is strictly stipulated that Mohammed is not to be artistically represented,” while Ahmed Kayssi wrote in the Journal on Feb. 10 that “to Muslims, caricaturing or depicting the Prophet is an intolerable offence, regardless of the intent.”
However, this conclusion is not unanimously agreed upon.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 8, the Iranian scholar Amir Taheri wrote that: “There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued ‘fatwas’ against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments—which include a ban on depicting God—as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is ‘an absolute principle of Islam’ is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.”
Taheri then points out several specific examples of Islamic art that depict the Prophet, and states that some of these works are currently on display at museums in Turkey, Uzbekistan and Iran.
I am not an expert on Islamic theology and am in no position to evaluate the competing claims about whether Islam prohibits depictions of the Prophet. The purpose of this letter is only to request more information from those more knowledgeable than myself.
What specific Quranic Sura, Hadith or other stipulation in Islamic Law prohibits depictions of the Prophet?
Steven Seligman
ArtSci ’05
Morrison’s review unfair
Dear Editors,
RE: “Turning back time at Morrison’s” (Journal, Feb. 7, 2006).
As a Queen’s grad student, I am writing in response to the review of Morrison’s by Anna Mehler Paperny. As assistant news editor and a fledgling journalist she should know better. Aside from giving herself away as an elitist Queen’s student who, upon venturing outside the five block circumference that comprises the Queen’s bubble, was offended by the look of the authentic ’30s-era restaurant Morrison’s, she was also simply rude. She violated one of the tenets of good journalism: don’t rely on personal attacks as the foundation of a piece. She quipped with easy cheap shots that the servers were merely “dumpy older ladies and fresh-faced boys.” I have one question: what does this disrespectful, insulting, lazy and false observation have to do with the quality of a grilled cheese sandwich or the stellar homemade soup found at Morrison’s? If she had followed through on basic fact-checking, another tenet of journalism, she would have realized the prices she cited were incorrect and the famous milkshakes are indeed homemade. I realize, as one of the editors, she is trying to warm up her editorializing chops, but this sort of amateur writing is not a review—it’s a juvenile attack. I write this letter because obviously Mehler Paperny will make a good writer one day, but she should learn to check her trendy attitudes, name-calling, and elitist clichés at the door. In the meantime, Morrison’s continues to do what it does best: serve quick and good food, at a decent price, in an authentic decor, to a clientele they know by name and who return loyally. Morrison’s, and its warm service, is becoming a rare find in gentrified Kingston, but this point was missed by the writer who was too busy looking for acid jazz, lattes and lava lamps on her Sunday afternoon. However, this point is never lost on the staff of Morrison’s who don’t have time to sample omelettes on a Sunday: they are too busy working hard.
Emily Rothwell
MA ’06
Cross-cultural communication failure at heart of protests
Dear Editors,
RE: “Depicting Prophet the real issue” (Journal, Feb. 14, 2006).
Reading Mr. Brown’s comments last week came as a real shock to me as I felt that many ideas and hypotheses are being made without looking at the overall context of the events that are happening.
Mr. Brown tried to compare protesters who are trying to stop journalists from publishing cartoons by stating “I will not allow that person to tell me I can’t take a picture of my wife.” I would like to suggest to Mr. Brown that he pays a small visit to any country in the Middle East and try to understand more about the culture, religion and economic situation. Anyone who does that will see that, in fact, in the Middle East the cartoons to a Muslim or even to a Christian (cartoons about Jesus) are worse than taking nude photos of their wives without permission. Please understand first what religion means to these people before making any judgments.
[Brown wrote that] “the cartoonists are being denounced for breaking the laws of a religion to which they do not adhere.” I am shocked to see such a statement. If I have the power to insult someone else’s beliefs should I do so? If this is the case then we are allowing for war between cultures and civilizations. Today a cartoon is made about the Prophet, tomorrow one is made about the Holocaust and we will end up with nations at war with words which I believe is the first step towards war with arms. Let us that freedom of speech is power and just as a strong military power could be abused to occupy and destroy, freedom of speech could be used to spread hate and ultimately destruction.
But let’s step back here for a second and look at the situation as a whole. You have people living with extreme poverty, government corruption, war, famine and news channels that can convince them that their religion is under attack, just as CNN could convince people that Iraq has WMDs and that Saddam is responsible for September 11.
At the same time we see journalists from Europe publishing these cartoons to defend their freedom of speech that they too believe is under attack. We are dealing with a complete failure of cross-cultural communication here. What if Muslims knew that the Danish journalists did not know that such cartoons will be offensive? What if these cartoons in fact do not portray the Prophet but people were made to believe they do? What if the journalists saw that they made a mistake, apologized and said they did not mean any offence? Instead we are seeing people from both sides feeling that something that is dear to them (freedom of speech or religion) is under attack and they see the only way to retaliate is by publishing or violently protesting.
The whole world is being driven into a vicious cycle of hate and violence, simply because few people chose to play games with values and beliefs (I will leave that to the reader to think carefully who these people might be). We need more education, communication, respect and being responsible with the powers that we have (in this case, freedom of speech).
Amr Abu-zeid
ArtSci ’05, MSc ’07
Men need to give sex toys a chance
Dear Editors, RE: “Not your childhood toys” (Journal, Feb. 14, 2006).
The article on sex toy products available at the Sexual Health Resource Center (SHRC) brought many questions to mind. While the article displayed a prominent picture of the “Fleshlight,” a male-intended sex toy, it also revealed the astonishingly high number of female masturbatory devices compared to those for males. As I strolled through the SHRC today, my suspicions were confirmed. There is a significant under-representation of male masturbatory devices.
In many ways this makes sense, in others it doesn’t. My gender does dictate an unavoidable bias, and I feel it is important to acknowledge that I accept this. However, personal experience has led me to believe guys are generally more open than girls about their “alone time,” and have fewer reservations about openly itting to pulling the goalie, if only to pretend they are getting back in “the game.” Of course this isn’t the case for all women, or perhaps even the majority. When compared to men, however, it’s clear that a notable difference exists. But the fact that the SHRC carries so few devices for males must be some indication of their demand, or lack thereof, on campus. It could certainly be argued that most guys might find walking into the SHRC a little intimidating, let alone purchasing a manufactured flashlight-vagina from a fellow student—quite possibly a female student—for $50. Curiosity is easily smothered by embarrassment. Depending on the individual, there could be several reasons for this, but the fact that the device is disguised as a flashlight is telling of a stigma attached to male masturbatory devices and the utter secrecy under which the brave few purchase them. So here’s the question: if men are so open about masturbation, why are they hesitant to buy products with potential beyond the palm of their hand? I don’t think the answer lies in our insecurities. Everyone has those. Maybe we have to look at the devices themselves and the baggage that comes with them.
Last week, the school’s fine production of The Vagina Monologues reminded us, among other things, of the need to be cautious in the way society projects and portrayal female sexuality, and vaginas in particular. Perhaps the very sight of a “pocket vagina,” as they are sometimes called, exposed on a shelf in SHRC carries enough stigma itself to ward off the most salacious of males. It seems too that with a wider selection of male masturbatory devices, the comfort of using these toys would increase along with the acceptance of vaginas in general. But this won’t happen until males start giving the toys a chance. So here’s to hoping the Fleshlight will illuminate the minds of other male students to go out and see the light! The ladies certainly are.
Mark Davis
Sci ’07
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].