The Student Room Group

Peter Lloyd: 'Why I'm suing my gym over their sexist women-only hours'

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by edithwashere
Surely if it's a private establishment it can refuse entry to people on whatever grounds they wish? I'm completely against discrimination, but is it not similar to the way that some pubs only let in over 21s? Surely that's age discrimination since anybody over 18 can legally go into a pub?

I dunno, I think he's got a point but he is making rather a large fuss over something that doesn't really affect his life that much. Are there no male-only gyms he could join?


Similarly that same argument can be applied to employing women.

"Surely if it's a private establishment it can refuse employment to people on whatever grounds they wish?"

This is no different.
Original post by Danehill897

I agree your second paragraph in that if I was the gym's manager that's what I would have done. However I don't think the law should require them to do that: if the manager wants to risk a mass exodus of their male customers and bad publicity - all to stop some female members from feeling self consious - then that's their decision, just as it's their responsibility if it results in the gym going bankrupt and to their credit if it (somehow) proves to be a comercial success.


No, it's not their decision. You can not actively discriminate based on gender. Thankfully this country does have principles.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function

No one is forcing him to pay this gym anything. It's not a public service, his sense of entitlement is of his own making.


He thinks he's entitled to fair treatment? Oh how dare he!
Being a 'private' service has diddly squat to do with anything, this isn't an uber-capitalist society where big business rules all. All business, private or otherwise has to abide by the principles of our laws.
Original post by pol pot noodles
He thinks he's entitled to fair treatment? Oh how dare he!
Being a 'private' service has diddly squat to do with anything, this isn't an uber-capitalist society where big business rules all. All business, private or otherwise has to abide by the principles of our laws.


Well there are two separate issues: 1) whether he is abiding by the law 2) whether the law is correct.

I don't think he is going to successfully sue. Just google ladies only gym and swimming and you will see how common this is.

As for 2), I don't see it as being much different to you having the choice as to who you allow into your home.
Reply 84
Original post by Dirac Delta Function

As for 2), I don't see it as being much different to you having the choice as to who you allow into your home.


Do you think employers should be allowed to discriminate against women when it comes down to employment?
Original post by pol pot noodles
No, it's not their decision. You can not actively discriminate based on gender. Thankfully this country does have principles.


I'm not a law student - so I'm not talking about whether it is illegal or not; I'm just arguing that companies should be able to offer whatever specialist services their paying customers want, even if the service is by its nature unavailable for one gender. This doesn't mean I have no principles, it just means I have different principles to you.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Well there are two separate issues: 1) whether he is abiding by the law 2) whether the law is correct.

I don't think he is going to successfully sue. Just google ladies only gym and swimming and you will see how common this is.


Except this isn't a ladies only gym, which is why there's a problem when they're discriminating against men.

Original post by Dirac Delta Function

As for 2), I don't see it as being much different to you having the choice as to who you allow into your home.


How you've come to that conclusion says more about yourself than anything else. Again, completely differenct concepts.
Original post by Danehill897
I'm just arguing that companies should be able to offer whatever specialist services their paying customers want, even if the service is by its nature unavailable for one gender.


That's not even what's going on here. It's the fact that men have to pay the same rate as women when they don't even get the same service.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Except this isn't a ladies only gym, which is why there's a problem when they're discriminating against men.

Isn't a ladies' only gym discriminating against men by definition?


Original post by pol pot noodles

How you've come to that conclusion says more about yourself than anything else. Again, completely differenct concepts.


Yes, it's a personal opinion, no objective reason it should be right.
I like the women's only hours at the gym. It means I can actually get a chance to use the weights as opposed to not even being able to get a look in because they're all taken up by uni gimps who lift a weight, strut around with a protein shake for a bit, lift another weight, etc.

Although I do agree that there should also be men's only hours. At my gyms it's always just women on the treadmills so I bet some men wouldn't really want to be the only man on the treadmill, especially if you were a bit self conscious anyway. I think it's a great idea and would encourage newbies/the self conscious. When I first joined a gym 4 years ago I used to only go when I knew it'd be empty anyway because I didn't like the idea of exercising in front of big beefy men!
Then the pertinent question is whether he was given the facts before hand or they introduced this after he had already signed up. If it's the latter, he has a fair case.

FWIW, I completely agree on the problem of misandry and hypocrisy when it comes to male rights. But freedoms of private enterprise are more important than equality.
Reply 91
Original post by Jelkin
I agree with you and with him. If the problem is women's insecurity, then we should be dealing with that rather than pandering to it. I'm surprised anyone has the energy to take legal action over such a thing, but I can't fault him for the principle.

ALTHOUGH, this annoys me: "a group of agenda-driven feminists say a minority of women 'feel' bad about their bodies." Does he know what a feminist is? I am feminist and I am a great believer in not segregating men and women, as are many who would identify as feminists. I don't think he had any reason to link the situation with that term. If anything I'd say it's belittling and anti-feminist to have women-only hours, not to mention that I see feminism as a belief in two-way equality between the sexes.

The only other argument the gym could apply (and I'm surprised they didn't) is that some religions wouldn't allow women to work out in a gym with men present. Not that I think that's a good reason, but it's a fairly typical line for this sort of scenario.


just want to ask - since you are a real feminist what is your view of women in front line combat ?

Do you think that is may be a bad thing if for instance they were captured in combat and then raped and tortured in that this may have a devastating effect on the rest of the troops ?
Reply 92
I agree with other's views that the gym should be prepared to offer men's only opening hours if they are wanted, they should not limit the privilege to only one sex.

Assuming what he says about not being interested in money is true, then I think it's fair enough... he's obviously trying to bring the issue to more people's attention to try and get it put right.

xxx
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 93
I think the real issue that he is pointing out in the article is that men are still being charged the same price as women, despite having a more limited access to the facilities. I don't have any major issue with gyms having the odd women-only session every now and then, but the fees for memberships should reflect this. I also think it is a bit ridiculous that male staff can't even work during these sessions, although I can see that there are also religious reasons behind this. Political correctness gone mad imo.

Having said all that though, if you don't like the gym you are going to then why not just change to a different one that better suits your needs?
Reply 94
He's absolutely right. What are we supposed to look at when we're bored on the treadmill if not women? :rolleyes:
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Isn't a ladies' only gym discriminating against men by definition?


No, because it's not prejudicial or unjust to men. A unisex gym arbritarily banning men for a couple of hours a day despite them paying a full contract however is.
I seem to have forgotten the purpose of gender. Could someone remind me please?
Reply 97
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Well, there's clearly demand for this kind of thing from women, it's up to the gym to decide how it sells it services.


This.
I have no problem working out with men, but that's really beside the point. A gym is a business, and can cater to its audience as it wants. Obviously the gym is trying to reach as large an audience as possible. Companies don't favour one gender over the over, they'll simply do whatever is the most profitable at any given time. If you don't like a company and their practice, you go somewhere else. I will agree that this guy comes across as whiny. If I feel like a company, gym or brand caters better to men than to women, I'll choose something different.
It's stupid mens rights activism which isn't done out of any kind of coherent principle but rather to wind up feminists. A coherent argument against political correctness and anti-discrimination laws would be to... well, oppose anti-discrimination laws, such as the one he is no doubt citing in this ridiculous case. A business should be able to charge whatever customers they like, whatever they like so long as they don't use coercion. If men are dumb enough to use a gym that discriminates against them then I have no problem with that entrepreneur separating them from their money, just the same as I wouldn't care if they were women, gays, asians or blacks. Don't like it? Vote with your money and tell your friends to do the same.

Not only is this an outrageous business model, but it's also sexist. Especially given that council officials base it almost solely on women's needs.

It's not outrageous at all if you and all the other men still bought a contract.

Furthermore, when I explained that men typically die before women, thus have a greater need to access fitness services something based on cold, hard fact rather than feelings they had no convincing answer.

At this point I realised it was a troll article, probably by the same guy that writes Samantha Brick's columns.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Millie228
This.
I have no problem working out with men, but that's really beside the point. A gym is a business, and can cater to its audience as it wants.

Perhaps that is the convoluted point of the article and the stupid lawsuit (that probably won't happen). This should be the case, but actually businesses are subject to anti-discrimination laws that prevent them from catering to their customers as they choose. Whether this case falls under the remit of those laws I don't know.

Quick Reply

Latest