Peter Lloyd: 'Why I'm suing my gym over their sexist women-only hours'
Scroll to see replies
Right, just to sum up my views:
1) Consumers have a right to be able to buy any type of service
2) Consumers don't have the right to buy that service from absolutely any of the companies that offer it.
3) If there's a contradiction between 1) and 2) (ie. everyone's discrimminating against you) then the state should intervene to ensure the consumer can buy that service.
4) Actions, such as adultery, may be morally wrong and show a lack of empathy- but this doesn't nessicarily mean they should be illegal
5) Discrimmination is morally wrong, but it should not be illegal ( apart from the circumstance given in 3) ) as if there are some buisnesses that don't discrimminate then none of your rights as outlined in 1), 2) and 3) are being violated (ie. you may have to go somewhere else to buy food, but you're not going to starve to death).
Looking at the summary of justifacations you gave in your post:
1) -
2) Like I just outlined, I only believe in the 'you should go elsewhere if you don't like it' when you have other places to go.
3) In the list of crimes you gave 'the owner losing control' cuts both ways. If you steal from someone then they're losing control of their own property, making it wrong. Peter Lloyd doesn't own a spot in that gym in the first place, so he doesn't have anything to 'lose control' of. He's not losing anything, he's just having something not being given to him.
4) So you're against children only swimming lessons and OAP pilate classes as well then?
1) Consumers have a right to be able to buy any type of service
2) Consumers don't have the right to buy that service from absolutely any of the companies that offer it.
3) If there's a contradiction between 1) and 2) (ie. everyone's discrimminating against you) then the state should intervene to ensure the consumer can buy that service.
4) Actions, such as adultery, may be morally wrong and show a lack of empathy- but this doesn't nessicarily mean they should be illegal
5) Discrimmination is morally wrong, but it should not be illegal ( apart from the circumstance given in 3) ) as if there are some buisnesses that don't discrimminate then none of your rights as outlined in 1), 2) and 3) are being violated (ie. you may have to go somewhere else to buy food, but you're not going to starve to death).
Looking at the summary of justifacations you gave in your post:
1) -
2) Like I just outlined, I only believe in the 'you should go elsewhere if you don't like it' when you have other places to go.
3) In the list of crimes you gave 'the owner losing control' cuts both ways. If you steal from someone then they're losing control of their own property, making it wrong. Peter Lloyd doesn't own a spot in that gym in the first place, so he doesn't have anything to 'lose control' of. He's not losing anything, he's just having something not being given to him.
4) So you're against children only swimming lessons and OAP pilate classes as well then?
Your justification that companies should be selling their services to absolutely anyone was that you're treating people badly if you deny them the chance to buy that service based on their colour/gender etc. I agree you're treating someone badly if you do that, but I used the adultery example to show that 'bad' actions don't necessarily have to be illegal. You then said the adultery is different to discriminating against customers as adultery takes place in private - but surely the gym is private property (you have to pay to go in there). p
Also, 2) comes under what I just said. For 3), Lloyd's only entitled to what he's paying for. If he's paying for male membership, (which gives him less services for the same price as the female membership) which only allows him in during certain hours, then he's only entitled to come in during those certain hours. For 4), to be honest I don't know what the prices are, but the point is that the gym's discriminating (based on age). You may expect for a company to treat you the same as everyone else, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to it.
Original post by Danehill897
Right, just to sum up my views:
1) Consumers have a right to be able to buy any type of service
2) Consumers don't have the right to buy that service from absolutely any of the companies that offer it.
3) If there's a contradiction between 1) and 2) (ie. everyone's discrimminating against you) then the state should intervene to ensure the consumer can buy that service.
1) Consumers have a right to be able to buy any type of service
2) Consumers don't have the right to buy that service from absolutely any of the companies that offer it.
3) If there's a contradiction between 1) and 2) (ie. everyone's discrimminating against you) then the state should intervene to ensure the consumer can buy that service.
Just how many companies have to discriminate before you think the law should intervene? Every single company in the country? 90%? 50%? Even if only 50% of companies refuse to serve you that would still place you at a significant disadvantage. I don't see any non-arbitrary way that you can pick a cutoff point.
Original post by incipientT
Just how many companies have to discriminate before you think the law should intervene? Every single company in the country? 90%? 50%? Even if only 50% of companies refuse to serve you that would still place you at a significant disadvantage. I don't see any non-arbitrary way that you can pick a cutoff point.
To be honest I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, and yes it would be very arbitrary - but then so much in the law is arbitrary. When judges give prison sentences they don't use a formula that say ... converts the number of people burgled into a time to serve in prison, they just pick a sentence that seems appropriate to them.
Your second point is interesting - but in my opinion those companies which may be discriminating against you don't owe you anything (ie. they don't owe you the opportunity to be served, it's their prerogative to offer any services they want).
Adultery is hardly frivolous is it? I can't imagine Peter Lloyd would be more upset by not being allowed into the gym for hours each week then having his wife cheat/betray him.
When I said '2) comes under what I just said', I was talking about your counter against the "you could just go elsewhere if you don't like it" argument (ie. that you shouldn't have to do that as it's unpleasant ) - which I answered with the adultery comparison.
Men and women do effectively have different memberships (although both genders pay the same) as they're allowed into the gym at different times.
We're still arguing, you haven't countered my arguments yet.
When I said '2) comes under what I just said', I was talking about your counter against the "you could just go elsewhere if you don't like it" argument (ie. that you shouldn't have to do that as it's unpleasant ) - which I answered with the adultery comparison.
Men and women do effectively have different memberships (although both genders pay the same) as they're allowed into the gym at different times.
We're still arguing, you haven't countered my arguments yet.
<br />
<br />
Prison sentences aren't set in stone like the laws of physics, at some point a group of men and women have sat down and decided roughly what punishment each crime should get. Deciding what prison sentence a murderer should have is just an arbitrary process as deciding when the government should step in to avoid total discrimination.
<br />
Prison sentences aren't set in stone like the laws of physics, at some point a group of men and women have sat down and decided roughly what punishment each crime should get. Deciding what prison sentence a murderer should have is just an arbitrary process as deciding when the government should step in to avoid total discrimination.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Yes, in particular, the principle that private enterprise is free to carry out business as they see fit within the bounds of the law.
They are under no obligation - moral or otherwise - to serve him.
They are under no obligation - moral or otherwise - to serve him.
It's gym in partnership with a council - that is, the state.
Not private enterprise. Partially taxpayer funded.
Original post by ArtGoblin
The guy sounds like an absolute ****: "It's also eerily reminiscent of when African Americans were separated from their caucasian peers in 1940s America." Seriously?? Still, he has a point that men shouldn't be forced to pay the same amount as women for reduced access. Rather than force all women to pay the increased price which he suggests, I think women should be given the option of paying the men's rate if they're not bothered about exercising in front of men, although that would make it difficult to determine who to throw out at 'women's hour'. Women who only want to exercise in a women's only environment should be given the option of a reduced price as well.
Women get all these "options", but men have never had much of a choice about how to spend their lives.
This panders to three destructive notions in our society:
1. women's insecurity about their own bodies
2. women are delicate flowers requiring special treatment
3. all men are rapists.
Also, please explain why exactly, without reactionary name-calling, it is any different to racial segregation. Because as far as I can see, it's exactly the same.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
Women get all these "options", but men have never had much of a choice about how to spend their lives.
This panders to three destructive notions in our society:
1. women's insecurity about their own bodies
2. women are delicate flowers requiring special treatment
3. all men are rapists.
Also, please explain why exactly, without reactionary name-calling, it is any different to racial segregation. Because as far as I can see, it's exactly the same.
This panders to three destructive notions in our society:
1. women's insecurity about their own bodies
2. women are delicate flowers requiring special treatment
3. all men are rapists.
Also, please explain why exactly, without reactionary name-calling, it is any different to racial segregation. Because as far as I can see, it's exactly the same.
You say that men don't have as many options, but why does a 'women's hour' exist? It's because women don't feel they have a choice to exercise when men are there. Women are socially constrained in many more ways than men are and it is quite ignorant to suggest otherwise.
I think women's insecurity should be dealt with, but it's not going to happen any time soon as corporations make far too much money off that insecurity, so I think a women's only time is acceptable. Without it, some women wouldn't feel able to go to the gym, and since we do live in a society where women are constantly made to feel bad about themselves, I don't think allowing them time to exercise in a comfortable environment is too much to ask. I can't see anything about the policy that suggests 'all men are rapists' - women don't fear going to the gym because they think they are going to be raped. They have been brought up in a society where women are told they must look good for men; they must put on an act of being this perfect creature that doesn't have the same bodily functions as men. Therefore, exercise in front of men is impossible for them.
The difference between this and racial segregation is the reasoning behind it. Black Americans were segregated because they were thought of as inferior; this is clearly not the case here. We separate public toilets based on gender; we never see the opposite sex naked unless we are sexually involved with them; it is therefore not surprising that some people do not like to be seen in tight sports clothes and looking bad in front of the other sex. It would be great in single sex gyms/sessions weren't needed, but unfortunately for some people they are not quite there yet, and nor is society.
Edit: Btw, I only called him a t***; the TSR swear filter made it look worse. It was that awful Daily Mail outrage-style tone that annoyed me, not his actual complaint.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ArtGoblin
You say that men don't have as many options, but why does a 'women's hour' exist? It's because women don't feel they have a choice to exercise when men are there. Women are socially constrained in many more ways than men are and it is quite ignorant to suggest otherwise.
I think women's insecurity should be dealt with, but it's not going to happen any time soon as corporations make far too much money off that insecurity, so I think a women's only time is acceptable. Without it, some women wouldn't feel able to go to the gym, and since we do live in a society where women are constantly made to feel bad about themselves, I don't think allowing them time to exercise in a comfortable environment is too much to ask. I can't see anything about the policy that suggests 'all men are rapists' - women don't fear going to the gym because they think they are going to be raped. They have been brought up in a society where women are told they must look good for men; they must put on an act of being this perfect creature that doesn't have the same bodily functions as men. Therefore, exercise in front of men is impossible for them.
The difference between this and racial segregation is the reasoning behind it. Black Americans were segregated because they were thought of as inferior; this is clearly not the case here. We separate public toilets based on gender; we never see the opposite sex naked unless we are sexually involved with them; it is therefore not surprising that some people do not like to be seen in tight sports clothes and looking bad in front of the other sex. It would be great in single sex gyms/sessions weren't needed, but unfortunately for some people they are not quite there yet, and nor is society.
Edit: Btw, I only called him a t***; the TSR swear filter made it look worse. It was that awful Daily Mail outrage-style tone that annoyed me, not his actual complaint.
I think women's insecurity should be dealt with, but it's not going to happen any time soon as corporations make far too much money off that insecurity, so I think a women's only time is acceptable. Without it, some women wouldn't feel able to go to the gym, and since we do live in a society where women are constantly made to feel bad about themselves, I don't think allowing them time to exercise in a comfortable environment is too much to ask. I can't see anything about the policy that suggests 'all men are rapists' - women don't fear going to the gym because they think they are going to be raped. They have been brought up in a society where women are told they must look good for men; they must put on an act of being this perfect creature that doesn't have the same bodily functions as men. Therefore, exercise in front of men is impossible for them.
The difference between this and racial segregation is the reasoning behind it. Black Americans were segregated because they were thought of as inferior; this is clearly not the case here. We separate public toilets based on gender; we never see the opposite sex naked unless we are sexually involved with them; it is therefore not surprising that some people do not like to be seen in tight sports clothes and looking bad in front of the other sex. It would be great in single sex gyms/sessions weren't needed, but unfortunately for some people they are not quite there yet, and nor is society.
Edit: Btw, I only called him a t***; the TSR swear filter made it look worse. It was that awful Daily Mail outrage-style tone that annoyed me, not his actual complaint.
Women aren't the only ones with body insecurity issues. To claim so or to claim that women have more insecurity issues than men is pretty ignorant.
The point on public toilets is pretty moot. Exercising and going to the toilet are pretty different
If you can't exercise in front of men you have some serious issues.Original post by LeBuche
Women aren't the only ones with body insecurity issues. To claim so or to claim that women have more insecurity issues than men is pretty ignorant.
The point on public toilets is pretty moot. Exercising and going to the toilet are pretty different If you can't exercise in front of men you have some serious issues.
The point on public toilets is pretty moot. Exercising and going to the toilet are pretty different
If you can't exercise in front of men you have some serious issues.I know men have body insecurity issues too; I didn't ever deny that. If a gym wanted to have a men's only period then I wouldn't object. That there are significantly less men's only gyms does say a lot about the extent of men's insecurity issues though; as does the number of women with eating disorders compared to men and the numbers of women getting plastic surgery compared to men.
There's no reason why women and men must use separate toilets. After all, there are cubicles so it's not like you see people using them anyway. My point was that we are used to hiding 'embarrassing' things from the opposite sex, and some people feel embarrassed about their bodies when they're exercising. A lot of women don't feel they can exercise in front of men - that's why women's only gyms exist. It is a serious issue but I don't think eliminating women's only sessions will change any of that. We need to tackle a culture where women feeling bad about their bodies is encouraged in a way it is not in men.
Original post by ArtGoblin
I know men have body insecurity issues too; I didn't ever deny that. If a gym wanted to have a men's only period then I wouldn't object. That there are significantly less men's only gyms does say a lot about the extent of men's insecurity issues though; as does the number of women with eating disorders compared to men and the numbers of women getting plastic surgery compared to men.
Lol'd, another quality post by ArtGoblin
Yes obviously more women than men have eating disorders, the image of an "attractive woman" is sterotypically that of a slim woman, and some women take that to an extreme.
But you are forgetting that men, in the majority of cases take it to the extreme in the completely opposite direction. Consistent use of anabolic steroids, growth hormones etc which all carry an element of risk and adverse effects on health, especially in cases where the user is inexperienced and does not do proper research on dosages and PCT drugs and so forth. Use of fat burning drugs which can cause serious heart problems in certain cases, just to get "ripped", so on and so forth. Do you know how prevalent use of drugs is these days in amateur bodybuilding circles? If that isn't an example of male body image issues then I don't know wtf is.
Your arbitrary idea that women have more body issues and therefore should be given their own special hour in a gym which men are paying an equal amount for holds no weight in reality and this gym is **** for introducing such a service.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Movember
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2311098/Peter-Lloyd-Why-Im-suing-gym-sexist-women-hours.html
what do you think of the view expressed in this article and womens only hours in general?
i can see where the guy is coming from. why do women need their special hours where men are excluded but men can't have the same thing? it says in the article because women are self conscious, have body hang ups, hate the way they look when they exercise and would rather men did not see this. but if i dont like the way i look when exercising around women, i cant ask for men only hours because i would be laughed at for being pathetic and told to man up. it is completely ridiculous in this day and age.
what do you think of the view expressed in this article and womens only hours in general?
i can see where the guy is coming from. why do women need their special hours where men are excluded but men can't have the same thing? it says in the article because women are self conscious, have body hang ups, hate the way they look when they exercise and would rather men did not see this. but if i dont like the way i look when exercising around women, i cant ask for men only hours because i would be laughed at for being pathetic and told to man up. it is completely ridiculous in this day and age.
Its about time.
Women always want special treatment and yet don't want to pay for it.
Original post by ArtGoblin
I know men have body insecurity issues too; I didn't ever deny that. If a gym wanted to have a men's only period then I wouldn't object. That there are significantly less men's only gyms does say a lot about the extent of men's insecurity issues though; as does the number of women with eating disorders compared to men and the numbers of women getting plastic surgery compared to men.
There's no reason why women and men must use separate toilets. After all, there are cubicles so it's not like you see people using them anyway. My point was that we are used to hiding 'embarrassing' things from the opposite sex, and some people feel embarrassed about their bodies when they're exercising. A lot of women don't feel they can exercise in front of men - that's why women's only gyms exist. It is a serious issue but I don't think eliminating women's only sessions will change any of that. We need to tackle a culture where women feeling bad about their bodies is encouraged in a way it is not in men.
There's no reason why women and men must use separate toilets. After all, there are cubicles so it's not like you see people using them anyway. My point was that we are used to hiding 'embarrassing' things from the opposite sex, and some people feel embarrassed about their bodies when they're exercising. A lot of women don't feel they can exercise in front of men - that's why women's only gyms exist. It is a serious issue but I don't think eliminating women's only sessions will change any of that. We need to tackle a culture where women feeling bad about their bodies is encouraged in a way it is not in men.
No it doesn't say anything about men's insecurities. They're under just as much pressure as women, just look (funnily enough) at any women's magazine the people who preach about the objectification of women and slaughter the media for forcing women to conform to certain body image types actually do the same thing to men.
If you have a problem with exercising in front of men you clearly have deeper problems about yourself and your body image than just not wanting men to see you working out.
All of it's pretty irrelevant anyway because if I'm paying to use a gym's services I expect to be able to use it whenever it's open and don't want to be turned away on the basis of my genitals.
Lmao reading your posts on this page you can barely even construct a sentence let alone present a proper argument against anyone
"i already know bad actions dont necessarily have to be illegal, the same way being a douchebag isnt illegal... but that doesnt mean discrimination is the same those"
"i already know bad actions dont necessarily have to be illegal, the same way being a douchebag isnt illegal... but that doesnt mean discrimination is the same those"
Original post by bertstare
Lol'd, another quality post by ArtGoblin
Yes obviously more women than men have eating disorders, the image of an "attractive woman" is sterotypically that of a slim woman, and some women take that to an extreme.
But you are forgetting that men, in the majority of cases take it to the extreme in the completely opposite direction. Consistent use of anabolic steroids, growth hormones etc which all carry an element of risk and adverse effects on health, especially in cases where the user is inexperienced and does not do proper research on dosages and PCT drugs and so forth. Use of fat burning drugs which can cause serious heart problems in certain cases, just to get "ripped", so on and so forth. Do you know how prevalent use of drugs is these days in amateur bodybuilding circles? If that isn't an example of male body image issues then I don't know wtf is.
Your arbitrary idea that women have more body issues and therefore should be given their own special hour in a gym which men are paying an equal amount for holds no weight in reality and this gym is **** for introducing such a service.
Yes obviously more women than men have eating disorders, the image of an "attractive woman" is sterotypically that of a slim woman, and some women take that to an extreme.
But you are forgetting that men, in the majority of cases take it to the extreme in the completely opposite direction. Consistent use of anabolic steroids, growth hormones etc which all carry an element of risk and adverse effects on health, especially in cases where the user is inexperienced and does not do proper research on dosages and PCT drugs and so forth. Use of fat burning drugs which can cause serious heart problems in certain cases, just to get "ripped", so on and so forth. Do you know how prevalent use of drugs is these days in amateur bodybuilding circles? If that isn't an example of male body image issues then I don't know wtf is.
Your arbitrary idea that women have more body issues and therefore should be given their own special hour in a gym which men are paying an equal amount for holds no weight in reality and this gym is **** for introducing such a service.
Seriously, read my entire post before replying or don't waste my time; you can't just pick the bits you want and disregard the rest. I have never once on this thread said I think men should have to pay the same for a reduced number of hours. I do not agree with that. However, I don't have a problem with separate women's (and men's) sessions if the gym wants to do that. As it is, gyms have decided that male only sessions are not worth doing but I have no problem with that in principle. Original post by LeBuche
No it doesn't say anything about men's insecurities. They're under just as much pressure as women, just look (funnily enough) at any women's magazine the people who preach about the objectification of women and slaughter the media for forcing women to conform to certain body image types actually do the same thing to men.
If you have a problem with exercising in front of men you clearly have deeper problems about yourself and your body image than just not wanting men to see you working out.
All of it's pretty irrelevant anyway because if I'm paying to use a gym's services I expect to be able to use it whenever it's open and don't want to be turned away on the basis of my genitals.
If you have a problem with exercising in front of men you clearly have deeper problems about yourself and your body image than just not wanting men to see you working out.
All of it's pretty irrelevant anyway because if I'm paying to use a gym's services I expect to be able to use it whenever it's open and don't want to be turned away on the basis of my genitals.
I don't agree that the pressure for men to look good is the same level as it is for women. Women are more strictly judged by the way they look; they are exposed to more images of the aspirational female body (e.g. women and men's magazines feature mainly female bodies, women are used to sell products more often than men, female bodies are scrutinised in the media much more frequently); they spend more money on their appearance. Obviously the women who feel they can't exercise in front of men do have deeper issues that need dealing with, but as this is quite a frequent problem, it seems to make sense to provide them with a service that means they don't have to exercise in front of men. There are also religious women who can't exercise with men, so it's not just providing for 'insecure' women. Again, please read what I wrote, not what you want me to have wrote. For the fourth time, I don't agree with the gym's policy of charging the same for a different number of hours. If you are aware of the opening hours policy before you join, I don't see the problem with you being allowed in the gym for less time for less money. I have had an off-peak membership to a gym before - I certainly didn't expect to be able to use it 'whenever it's open' because that's not what I paid for.
He writes about men's rights issues for the Mail, there's a lot wrong with him. He also wrote in that hysterical Mail-y way and blamed feminism for the gym's policy which is obviously bull****. He is a ****, but I haven't really got an issue with this complaint.
whatever the reasons were to introduce this women only session, if it is that important, then A) seems very fair...
if you wanted to emphasise women more (which is a bit prat-ish), then B) also seems very fair.
if you want everyone to be the same and scrap whatever reasons there are to have sex specific only sessions, then C) also seems very fair...
overall, very good options have been mentioned by him... i didnt see where the bold came from in the article, but that would also be an appropriate option D)... i disagree with the last bold however... they shouldnt be given a reduced price, rather an increased one... women should pay more for special features such as single sex only, just like a man should for man sessions
if this is an insecurity issue, youd either have to suck it up or pay more for the convenience of sparing your insecurities with a single sex session
if you wanted to emphasise women more (which is a bit prat-ish), then B) also seems very fair.
if you want everyone to be the same and scrap whatever reasons there are to have sex specific only sessions, then C) also seems very fair...
overall, very good options have been mentioned by him... i didnt see where the bold came from in the article, but that would also be an appropriate option D)... i disagree with the last bold however... they shouldnt be given a reduced price, rather an increased one... women should pay more for special features such as single sex only, just like a man should for man sessions
if this is an insecurity issue, youd either have to suck it up or pay more for the convenience of sparing your insecurities with a single sex session
If some women didn't want to exercise in front of men at all, why would they pay for a full time gym membership though? I agree that if a woman wanted to use the regular sessions and the single sex sessions she should pay more because she has more access time. However, if I refused to exercise in front of men, I would go to a women's only gym where I could go any time for a similar price, rather than for less than an hour a day like at this man's gym.
(edited 10 years ago)
In this thread
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Google level 4 software development apprenticeshipLast reply 3 minutes ago
Unit 19 health and social care, HELP PLEASE!!Last reply 7 minutes ago
MSc Petroleum Engineering - Aberdeen or Heriot-Watt?Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Access to HE accepted for Degree Apprenticeships?Last reply 13 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 16 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewPosted 18 minutes ago
Summer Accomodation for Warwick or Coventry students/visitorsLast reply 20 minutes ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 24 minutes ago
Worried about the acceptance of my A level Qualifications. Need an answerTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 23 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 23 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
