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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    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.
    The consumer protection in this case is that if not many people want to go to a gym with women only periods then the gym will probably go out of buisness - while its competitors which don't gender discrimminate will get extra buisness and become more successful.
    To be honest I can't understand why some women wouldn't want to excercise in front of men (surely thinking your body's not good enough is just motivation to train harder?), but I still think they should have the right to whatever service many of them are willing to pay for and which the gym can provide.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    This mirage of what you believe feminism to be is far from the truth, explore this idea before outright rejecting it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    If it's all the gym's decision then surely they should be aloud to not sell its services to black people too?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    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"
    can't you get banned already? you post nothing useful on this forum, its really rather annoying.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    He's right though, it is reminiscent of that, as it is discrimination. There's no point trying to pretend it's not sexism when it clearly is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, some men are also insecure with their bodies, however there is not the same voyeuristic and predatory attitude towards men from women that there is towards women from men. How often do you see men's bodies being scrutinized and criticized in the media? Like it or not, far more emphasis is put on women's appearance than men's, so it's no wonder some women feel vulnerable and sensitive over this sort of thing. Just have a men's only hour as well or something if people are so upset over it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    can't you get banned already? you post nothing useful on this forum, its really rather annoying.
    i will posting something very useful now in revision forum (allow time)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    Those women are not going to court about it, he is. They are not doing the same thing.
    Are you unaware of all the history of women going to court about mens only clubs?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The reason I go to a women only gym now is because I go there to workout not to be hit on. Some guys don't understand that concept - i've been chatted up on two different occasions on the stationary bike. However I don't think we have the right to women only gyms or time slots - just like men don't have the right to use the gym during said women-only hours. It's a company that can choose to work in whatever way it pleases and with that said, it should be easier to cancel a membership and take your custom elsewhere.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Meh it worked for car insurance, can't see how this is much different.

    If a woman is so hung up on their body image that they cant exercise in front of men thats their problem, don't take it out on society.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    To all those who disagree with him:

    Firstly, it's factually incorrect to say it's not discrimination - it clearly is

    Secondly, it completely ignores the fact that many men also have body-image issues, yet they cannot exercise in a men only gym (I did a quick google search on this - admittedly that's not scientific, but I couldn't find any men only gyms in this country)

    Another issue he raised that so far has been overlooked, is that the rule also assumes that everyone is straight, which will clearly not be the case in the vast majority of gyms, should lesbians be excluded from women-only sessions so they cannot hit on women??? Same with gay-men.

    I hope he wins. This is not a women's rights issue, or a men's rights issue. It's a human rights issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aspirinpharmacist)
    EQUALITY IS ABOUT GIVING EVERYONE THE SAME TREATMENT.
    I'm not sure how I feel about the issue of women-only hours. I agree to an extent with part of the article in that, if women do not feel comfortable exercising in front of men, then there is a larger problem to address. Clearly, however, that's not going to happen overnight, so... If the problem is one of unfairness in terms of membership prices, then have men-only hours too, whatever.

    However, I should point out something that's been bugging me for a while on some of these 'feminism sucks' threads. It is a well established legal principle that 'equality' in terms of equality of outcomes can require different treatment to get to that point. So equality is not necessarily giving everyone the same treatment - it depends on which philosophy of equality you subscribe to. And some people would say that, where there are entrenched social barriers to equality (in terms of gender, race, sexuality, disability, etc), there may be different things required to to achieve true equality.

    A simple example of this is a wheelchair ramp. There are no laws banning people in wheelchairs from public buildings, but unless there are special considerations made for them, they cannot enter the building, and therefore remain in an unequal position.

    What special considerations should be made in order for equal outcomes is, of course, controversial. And whether 'women only' gym hours is a reasonable adjustment is probably up for debate, but I'm not sure anyone is approaching the issue with much sensitivity...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    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"
    No, because he gets access to the shoe all the time once the guy buys it, it would be discrimination If when the size four shoe was bought, the said person with the size four only gets to wear the shoe between 9am-10pm and paid £60 whereas the person with the size 7 shoe also paid £60 but gets to wear the shoe 24/7.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malabarista)
    He's right though, it is reminiscent of that, as it is discrimination. There's no point trying to pretend it's not sexism when it clearly is.
    Men are not seen as inferior though. If anything, they are seen as superior, so it seems ridiculous to compare men not being allowed in a gym at a certain time of day so that women who feel uncomfortable exercising in front of them pay that particular gym instead of a women's only gym to the institutionalised segregation of black people in the US.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Men are not seen as inferior though. If anything, they are seen as superior, so it seems ridiculous to compare men not being allowed in a gym at a certain time of day so that women who feel uncomfortable exercising in front of them pay that particular gym instead of a women's only gym to the institutionalised segregation of black people in the US.
    How do men have the upper hand in that they have restricted access to the gym? If anything, women are 'superior' here. You also ignore the fact that there may be men that feel uncomfortable exercising in front of women. The comparison is fair as two groups are being segragated, with one having fewer rights.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by askew116)
    To all those who disagree with him:

    Firstly, it's factually incorrect to say it's not discrimination - it clearly is

    Secondly, it completely ignores the fact that many men also have body-image issues, yet they cannot exercise in a men only gym (I did a quick google search on this - admittedly that's not scientific, but I couldn't find any men only gyms in this country)

    Another issue he raised that so far has been overlooked, is that the rule also assumes that everyone is straight, which will clearly not be the case in the vast majority of gyms, should lesbians be excluded from women-only sessions so they cannot hit on women??? Same with gay-men.

    I hope he wins. This is not a women's rights issue, or a men's rights issue. It's a human rights issue.
    Your Googling skills fail. http://www.nickmitchellblog.com/musc...uilding-mecca/ The truth is, if there was a bigger demand for male-only gyms, they would exist. However, men tend to dominate gyms anyway which is why many women may not feel comfortable in that environment.

    I don't think there's an issue with sexuality really - many women feel comfortable with lesbians even though they may be attracted to them because they're both women and have the same type of bodies. That's why there isn't separate toilets for lesbians and gay men!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malabarista)
    How do men have the upper hand in that they have restricted access to the gym? If anything, women are 'superior' here. You also ignore the fact that there may be men that feel uncomfortable exercising in front of women. The comparison is fair as two groups are being segragated, with one having fewer rights.
    The point is that the basis of their segregation isn't that one group is superior to the other. Women aren't allowed extra time in the gym because they can't associate with inferior beings - they're given extra time because they are more likely to be so insecure about their bodies that they can't exercise with men. The gym want to give them that time so that they will join their gym rather than join a women's only gym. It is in no way comparable to discrimination faced by black people in the US. In this situation, if men don't like the gym's policy, they could join another gym. In the US, they were classed as second class citizens in all areas of their life.

    Of course many men may feel uncomfortable exercising in front of women. Ultimately though, if the demand was there, it would probably already exist. If it is there, then those men need to make it known! Though I suspect a male only gym would be more intimidating than a mixed gym judging by the link I posted earlier about a male only gym in London. I guess it depends on the insecurity of the individual man.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    The point is that the basis of their segregation isn't that one group is superior to the other. Women aren't allowed extra time in the gym because they can't associate with inferior beings - they're given extra time because they are more likely to be so insecure about their bodies that they can't exercise with men. The gym want to give them that time so that they will join their gym rather than join a women's only gym. It is in no way comparable to discrimination faced by black people in the US. In this situation, if men don't like the gym's policy, they could join another gym. In the US, they were classed as second class citizens in all areas of their life.

    Of course many men may feel uncomfortable exercising in front of women. Ultimately though, if the demand was there, it would probably already exist. If it is there, then those men need to make it known! Though I suspect a male only gym would be more intimidating than a mixed gym judging by the link I posted earlier about a male only gym in London. I guess it depends on the insecurity of the individual man.
    The idea that if men don't like it they should go somewhere else is discriminatory as well. Men do have the right to kick up a fuss as it is discriminatory. If I didn't pay a woman the same as a man, she would likely sue me for discrimination, not look for another job, as you are suggesting.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Your Googling skills fail. http://www.nickmitchellblog.com/musc...uilding-mecca/ The truth is, if there was a bigger demand for male-only gyms, they would exist. However, men tend to dominate gyms anyway which is why many women may not feel comfortable in that environment.



    I don't think there's an issue with sexuality really - many women feel comfortable with lesbians even though they may be attracted to them because they're both women and have the same type of bodies. That's why there isn't separate toilets for lesbians and gay men!
    This isn't the same, and there's already woman's only gyms. This is a mixed gender gym. Incomparable. Should there be a black/white only time for people too?

    So, do the people at your gym exercise naked? :confused: No, so this isn't a decent comparison.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think the issue here is not the existence of women-only hours or women-only gyms, they are separate, albeit linked issues. The issue is that, at the the gym that Mr Lloyd is suing, men are being required to pay the same amount of money as women for what is a lesser service since women have more time for which they have access to the gym's facilities. That is sexist and I hope Mr Lloyd wins his case.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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