• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Sexism in Gyms

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...loyd-Why-Im-suing-gym-sexist-women-hours.html

Basically, a man is suing a gym for allocating female-only gym time. The issue is apart from what he alleges is sexism, men pay the same fees for membership as women, meaning they are essentially paying for 442 hours where they are banned from the gym.

He proposes that they either reduce the fees for men, offer the same service for men, or remove the service for females for the sake of equality.

Go.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
19,345
Whether or not it is intentional or not is another matter.

On the surface, I would agree with the sentiments of at the very least offering direct compensation for the lost time to men paying the fee, but not getting the same benefits. However, the gym itself is entitled to making its own regulations (within reason of the laws in place). If you joined, you most likely agreed to a terms and services agreement of some kind which likely states that you are fine with this happening.

To me, there are two subjects which are not linked at all. Remove the idea of any sort of sexism from the tale and you simply see a person trying to advocate for trying to get the same perks as other people. Unless there is obvious intentions behind the those in charge to discriminate on purpose, this does NOT seem like sexism.
As we have it defined by a variety of dictionaries, Sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."
Source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexism
Sexism "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

I suppose the question becomes is allocated female only time discriminatory, stereotyping, or prejudice in some way? I would think not without more information about the gym's response. Within this article, I am not entirely convinced about the direct response to this man's complaints to really inquire more about their intentions.
 

theeboredone

Smash Legend
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
12,398
Location
Houston, TX
I do believe some of these women do join this gym to have that ability to exercise with no men being around. Honestly, even if it is implied in the Terms and Conditions prior to signing, it's only natural for the price to be slightly reduced for men due to the lessening of hours.

I found the comment about bars having half off for ladies a bit humorous though. Strange comparison, but a fair one when you think about it.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,169
Location
Icerim Mountains
Dre., I've got to hand it to you THIS topic is actually debatable.

I won't comment much on the original point, b/c I think we need to let some of the PG's have in on it, I will however comment on the comment about bars...

From a purely business stance, "ladies night" is something that's done to attract, well attractive customers. Bars (in the US, mind you, granted this is a UK article) are typically meant to serve one of two purposes: 1.) a place for people to get drunk and be left the hell alone (dives) and 2.) social gathering places - mainly for courting purposes but also for casual meetings, friends, etc. It is in the best interest of any business to stimulate growth and in retail especially this is done with sales and bargains. So, in essence, there's no difference between having a ladies night at a bar, as there is in having k-mart offer all women's blouses 50% off. You won't find many men who squawk UNFAIR! at k-mart because -their- tops aren't 50% off that week. However this involves a dynamic which is hard to speak on, but really does underlay the whole thing - sexual orientation.

"WHAT?"

Yeah...

See, to a gay man, it might be a crime that silk shirts aren't discounted when women's clothing is.

To a gay man, it might be a crime that a bar offers dollar draws on Tuesday nights to women and yet there's no such night for men.

And, I suppose in some strange reversal, it's a crime to a straight man that he can't work out in the gym while salivating over some hottie on the tread mill.

So in essence the issues brought up by this article and arguments surrounding it, are really talking less about sexism and more about heteronormativity. With this in mind, we can see why there's an issue with the UK man and his not getting a "fair" deal out of the gym. My response to such people is to simply join a different gym (unless there isn't another one to join, which means, tough **** deal with it). It's not as if there aren't men who would prefer to work out in a gym that wasn't exclusively all out-of-shape-men. There's even a chain of gyms in the US that promotes an atmosphere of non-jocky-ness, because they realize that most people aren't trying to be body builders, they just want to be in shape, and it's tough to feel comfortable when you're a lard ass sweating beads on the exercise bike and joe-muscle head is over there doing 30 reps @ 300 pounds, surrounded by his spotters and beefy friends who all leer in your general direction and snicker because of what a spectacle you must look like.

Obviously these are generalizations, and yeah, typically you'd eschew them, but it's worthwhile to mention b/c not every man and not every woman that goes into a gym, or a bar, is interested in being the object of attention - and in this case, I'd say it's more important to identify these trends because of the fact that they're rooted in heteronormativity and today's progressives are challenging these with ferocity (which is a good thing - most of the time.)

Meanwhile HERE you can totally find bars that offer a men's night out, not that I'd go, cause it's mostly gay men and I'm not gay.

HERE you can find gyms that offer a more comfortable atmosphere for your workout where you're not scrutinized by block heads.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
The main point is that the men are being charged for 442 hours that they cannot use. From the article I get the impression that this stipulation was not in their original contract. In any other scenario that sort of practice would be getting scolded on 60 Minutes (that's the show you have in America right?) but in this case it isn't because it is a service that helps women.

If however, it was say, gays or Muslims, or even just men instead of women, this would be looked at in a much more negative light universally. I think this is where his sexism cry comes from, because the same (illegal) privilege wouldn't be afforded to other groups.

At the end of the day men are paying for hours that they cannot use. That's illegal, end of story really.
 

Xivii

caterpillar feet
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
12,902
Location
Kindgom of Science
NNID
HBC
Yep.

They could offer segregated rooms, but to exclude men completely is discriminating. Didn't read the article yet, but are they being charged 442 hours they cannot use or are women getting 442 hours free? There's a difference, but in either case it's still discriminating.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Sucumbio- Your point about ladies night and bars and stuff like that is completely off. The difference is there is that men don't pay a fee to use the bar all year-round. If you're spending money about a bar, you're getting a service for it. In the gym situation they've pauid money and not received the service in return.
 

Teran

Through Fire, Justice is Served
Super Moderator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
37,165
Location
Beastector HQ
3DS FC
3540-0079-4988
Man is justified. He is being grossly overcharged because of the poor implementation of this women only policy. There's a simple way to solve this and that's separate gyms for men and women.

It's funny though, in my gym it's like that and some women come into the men's gym on occasion, but we all know **** would hit the fan if a man walks into the women's gym. Then again, it's not like there's anything of worth in the women's gym anyway.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,169
Location
Icerim Mountains
I was probably not clear enough, it's all good. My point was directed at one of the comments in the article's thread, not about the issue itself. In essence the poster made a poor comparison in the bar thing, and I felt it necessary to argue it, just not there, but here since someone else mentioned it here and I wanted to ensure that the side-argument was at least thought about in the right "light" so to speak. I did go on to draw conclusions based upon my premise that heteronormativity > sexism in this debate, but only insofar as gyms in general, not in this specific case. The man IS in the right, he's having to pay for a service that's not being rendered, but I find that the broader discussion is more compelling than his own personal plight with this one gym, b/c that's really a no-brainer, ergo not much to debate on.
 

eg0r

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
3
While I agree that the gym may have handled their policy poorly (they should have made it clear in the contract), I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong with maintaining this type of policy, and I do not believe there is any sexism here. Dre, you point out that the author believes that if it was some other group of people (not women) receiving this sort of privilege, it would receive much more negative attention and possibly not be allowed. Well if we were actually in such a situation, where a gym was not allowed to maintain a policy of only allowing a specific group of people, then this would be wrong. As far as sexism goes, the issue is not in women getting a privilege, but in a hypothetical scenario in which a gym is not allowed to maintain a policy of having men receive the same privilege. I would call such a hypothetical scenario sexist.

To summarize, gyms should be allowed to dictate their own policy regarding what groups of people they allow/don't at a given time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom