Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Except clearly the guy doesn't think they are acting within the law.
    They are under obligation to not discriminate against consumers based on gender.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    422 hours is a significant period of time not to be able to use the gym.

    Its an indefensible policy. If women are actually harassed, then the member needs to be ejected. If its just as case of women's feeling then its rubbish. Perhaps we should have no blacks or muslims hours to make people feel safer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I just don't understand why the gym doesn't give membership to men at lower prices. They could've saved themselves a whole lot of bad publicity and possible financial losses had they done so. If you're going to discriminate based on something like gender, at least make sure you're not charging men for the lost time they can't spend at the gym.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Except clearly the guy doesn't think they are acting within the law.
    They are under obligation to not discriminate against consumers based on gender.
    That's his failing. There is no way he a judge is going to take him seriously.

    EDIT: and btw, he probably knows he is not going to win, this whole episode is about kicking up drama for a Daily Mail article. It's attention whoring and little more.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    That's his failing. There is no way he a judge is going to take him seriously.
    Not his failing, that would be the judges failing. The law is clear on the matter. I'd imagine the judge will take him seriously when he gets some support from feminists, equality and all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    422 hours is a significant period of time not to be able to use the gym.

    Its an indefensible policy. If women are actually harassed, then the member needs to be ejected. If its just as case of women's feeling then its rubbish. Perhaps we should have no blacks or muslims hours to make people feel safer.
    There's white only hours at the gym? Every time I go the the gym people get worried that black people will *insert stereotype here*.:rolleyes: but in all honesty he has an obvious point, there's woman only gyms that men can't go to, this is a public mixed gender gym, for things like swimming I can understand, as there's usually men only hours too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of people saying that equality means Men should have men only hours at gyms? I thought equality means that there is no devide between us in the first place..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    That's his failing. There is no way he a judge is going to take him seriously.

    EDIT: and btw, he probably knows he is not going to win, this whole episode is about kicking up drama for a Daily Mail article. It's attention whoring and little more.
    He's actually got a very good chance of winning this case, discrimination against gender, is obviously quite serious, it's like discrimination against race.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    That's his failing. There is no way he a judge is going to take him seriously.

    EDIT: and btw, he probably knows he is not going to win, this whole episode is about kicking up drama for a Daily Mail article. It's attention whoring and little more.
    Except he raises a good point, the gym is discriminating, and it's not just some pointless media stunt that you're implying it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Except clearly the guy doesn't think they are acting within the law.
    They are under obligation to not discriminate against consumers based on gender.
    I'm not sure what the law says, but from a moral point of view I don't see what's wrong with discrimminating against customers based on gender/age etc. as long as there's a reasonable reason behind it.
    For example, I don't see what's wrong with charging teenage males more for car insurance than females. Insurance companies should be able to offer you whatever rate they feel is appropiate (which will be based on your age and gender as that's basically the only information they have on you) - and then it's up to you to accept or reject it. Equally if you don't like how your gym's being run and think it's sexist, you don't have to go to this gym, you could go to another if possible or instead buy dumbells to use at home or something.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    I'm not sure what the law says, but from a moral point of view I don't see what's wrong with discrimminating against customers based on gender/age etc. as long as there's a reasonable reason behind it.
    For example, I don't see what's wrong with charging teenage males more for car insurance than females. Insurance companies should be able to offer you whatever rate they feel is appropiate (which will be based on your age and gender as that's basically the only information they have on you) - and then it's up to you to accept or reject it. Equally if you don't like how your gym's being run and think it's sexist, you don't have to go to this gym, you could go to another if possible or instead buy dumbells to use at home or something.
    This isn't a dog-eat-dog uber capitalist society. There needs to be protection for consumers. The way you envision it would put us at the mercy of big business, especially insurance where one is legally mandated to buy it. Allowing corporations to have a gun-ho 'it's my way or the highway' approach would lead to appalling customer service, as if it wasn't bad enough in this country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    :rolleyes: It really isn't that much of a big deal. Surely one could take the point apart and point out why it may or may not be wrong but really it's not a big deal. Going through the motions or suing them just makes it seem somewhat over the top.
    I don't agree. I think that it IS a big deal. Just the same way I think having "men only" hours would be discriminatory, don't you think if that happened people would put up a stink about it? Why should the protection of men's rights not be a "big deal"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    422 hours is a significant period of time not to be able to use the gym.

    Its an indefensible policy. If women are actually harassed, then the member needs to be ejected. If its just as case of women's feeling then its rubbish. Perhaps we should have no blacks or muslims hours to make people feel safer.
    Agree with this.


    It's a ridiculous policy.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is like saying:


    I am going to sue shoe company, because they selling (manufacturing) more size 8 shoe than size 4 shoe.

    Is size-4-footed-people discrimination.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    I don't agree. I think that it IS a big deal. Just the same way I think having "men only" hours would be discriminatory, don't you think if that happened people would put up a stink about it? Why should the protection of men's rights not be a "big deal"?
    To call this a battle in the name of "men's rights" is a bit of a stretch. It's a private institution I assume so they can be pretty flexible with who they let in at what times. Much like swimming pools have family hours or a mother and child hour. If you want to get in during that time and you are refused would you kick up a stink?
    Places like gyms create things like "women only" hours I assume for marketing reasons although I'm sure there are other reasons too. Clearly places like that do it to try and encourage women who are already members to attend on that day and to invite their friends (women of course) to boost membership. So unless you can really show that it was done for malicious reasons or to try and belittle mens rights or anything else then really it seems little more that nitpicking and a waste of time for everyone.
    It's irrelevant and unnecessary. He might not have anything better to do but I'm sure other people involved do. I hope he fails, badly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    Is like saying:


    I am going to sue shoe company, because they selling (manufacturing) more size 8 shoe than size 4 shoe.

    Is size-4-footed-people discrimination.
    No because you can get a size four shoe whereas with this company he's refused from getting a size 4 shoe, when though he's pay for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    To call this a battle in the name of "men's rights" is a bit of a stretch. It's a private institution I assume so they can be pretty flexible with who they let in at what times. Much like swimming pools have family hours or a mother and child hour. If you want to get in during that time and you are refused would you kick up a stink?
    Places like gyms create things like "women only" hours I assume for marketing reasons although I'm sure there are other reasons too. Clearly places like that do it to try and encourage women who are already members to attend on that day and to invite their friends (women of course) to boost membership. So unless you can really show that it was done for malicious reasons or to try and belittle mens rights or anything else then really it seems little more that nitpicking and a waste of time for everyone.
    It's irrelevant and unnecessary. He might not have anything better to do but I'm sure other people involved do. I hope he fails, badly.
    So unless you can really show that it was done for malicious reasons
    You don't have to do something for "malicious reasons" for it to be discriminatory.

    And it IS sex discrimination - pure and simple!

    E.g. not allowing people of a certain race/class into an establishment because they might "cause trouble" isn't malicious, but you don't see that still being done do you?



    I'm not sure about the family/mother child hours - so won't comment on that.

    It's a private institution I assume so they can be pretty flexible with who they let in at what times.
    Only within certain legal limits. If a club decided on black only hours, or white only hours, then CERTAINLY that would be an issue wouldn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chappers-94)
    No because you can get a size four shoe whereas with this company he's refused from getting a size 4 shoe, when though he's pay for it.
    Wrong,


    size 4 shoe is less available,

    with this company, size 4 shoe is also less available




    i said "they selling less size 4 shoe than size 8 shoe: discrimination"
    not "they not selling size 4 shoe at all: discrimination"
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 27, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.