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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I seem to have forgotten the purpose of gender. Could someone remind me please?
    Offline

    9
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    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.

    Even if he was, could it have been reasonably foreseen that so much time would be unavailable to him just because he was born a male?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    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.
    As far as I know, anti-discrimination laws deals with whether a company has the right to refuse or not cater to any customers, i.e. refusing them membership. Also anti-discrimination deals with HR and requirements for hiring.

    I have honestly never been a member of a gym who has women only hours or anything like that - I'm not from the UK or US so the concept is somewhat foreign to me. But I took a quick look at the Kentish Sports Club website, and it's all there pretty clearly - the women's hours are all mentioned so these are things you know before you join.
    It just seems a bit like an "argument for the sake of it" thing to me. I don't like it when feminists do it, and I don't like it when men do it either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Even if he was, could it have been reasonably foreseen that so much time would be unavailable to him just because he was born a male?
    Well if they told him it was going to happen then yes it could be reasonably forseen.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    Well if they told him it was going to happen then yes it could be reasonably forseen.
    The amount is the thing in question.
    "This may happen in moderation"
    *happens in excess*.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Lloyd is clearly right in this case, it's blatant sexism. He's also right to sue, to be asked to leave because he's male is ridiculous.

    If a gym had 'whites only' hours because some white people didn't like working out in front of black people, would it be acceptable? No? Then why is it acceptable to have female only hours?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    if this doesnt work for both genders then this is discrimination! why should a person pay to be disadvantaged because of another paying member?

    gender only times is not necessarily discrimination... only offering it to one gender is...
    I definately agree that it's unfair to charge men the same for reduced services, and if there's a demand for men only hours then I think the gym should introduce them. However by 'should' I mean that's what I'd do if I was in charge of them gym - as opposed to 'should' meaning the law should oblige them to do that.

    I'm aware this is quite a controversial opinion, but as long as companies don't have a monopoly I don't see what's wrong with them practising discrimmination. If you don't like how a gym operates then go elsewhere (what I'd have done in Peter Lloyd's situation)- the gym in question doesn't owe him 24 hour service (even if he's willing to pay for it). At the end of the day the gym owner owns the gym - it should be their's to do with as they please. They're within their rights to smash the windows and trash the equipment - their own property - if they felt like it, so why shouldn't they be allowed to occasionally ban men from the gym if they want to?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Men are just as insecure, me being quite skinny and pretty tall, I'm not exactly gunna bust in the gym to show off.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt that gyms do 'women-only hours' and not 'men-only hours' to be sexist. They must have financial reasons behind doing it - if there was financial gain in doing both, they probably would.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rstar28)
    I doubt that gyms do 'women-only hours' and not 'men-only hours' to be sexist. They must have financial reasons behind doing it - if there was financial gain in doing both, they probably would.
    But if you forget the profit (which to be fair is probably the most common reason), do you think they should cater to woman only hours assuming it has no effect on financial gain to the company?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    I definately agree that it's unfair to charge men the same for reduced services, and if there's a demand for men only hours then I think the gym should introduce them. However by 'should' I mean that's what I'd do if I was in charge of them gym - as opposed to 'should' meaning the law should oblige them to do that.

    I'm aware this is quite a controversial opinion, but as long as companies don't have a monopoly I don't see what's wrong with them practising discrimmination. If you don't like how a gym operates then go elsewhere (what I'd have done in Peter Lloyd's situation)- the gym in question doesn't owe him 24 hour service (even if he's willing to pay for it). At the end of the day the gym owner owns the gym - it should be their's to do with as they please. They're within their rights to smash the windows and trash the equipment - their own property - if they felt like it, so why shouldn't they be allowed to occasionally ban men from the gym if they want to?
    generally, the point of the law is for justice and fair play... cant really do that if discrimination exists...

    the whole "If you don't like how a gym operates then go elsewhere" is bullcrap here... that line is for issues like the gym not being open 24/7 like you want...not things that are not concerning issues like how different genders are treated... my nearest gym is open till 10.30, my friends one is 24/7, that line of yours would be adequate for my time example, but it is not adequate here... understand this...

    no, at the end of the day, the gym owner should be like everyone else, who is expected to behave in a civilised and non discriminatory manner... you might get away with discrimination in small frivolous scenarios like handing out chocolate to your friends, but not in a place of business... if you discriminate me in your place of business, prepare to get sued...

    They can do what they will with their equipment, sell it/whatever, but they cannot treat one paying customer different to another like this. dont confuse smashing up equipment and windows with how they treat people, they are two different things :lolwut:

    I do hope Peter Lloyd is successful with resolving this and hope other organisations, not just gyms, take note...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    You don't have to do something for "malicious reasons" for it to be discriminatory.

    And it IS sex discrimination - pure and simple!
    So if a swimming pool does days where only people over 60 and mothers and babies can go that's discrimination too? Are you going to kick up an irrelevant fuss over that too? Discrimination my ass.

    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?
    If it's not for malicious or discriminative reasons then I think that takes a lot of sting out of the discrimination claim.

    I'm not sure about the family/mother child hours - so won't comment on that.
    What isn't there to get? It was a comparative example. Swimming pools have mother and baby hours and hours for people with kids and for people 60 and over. If someone is turned away because they fit neither of those catergories are you going to cause a stir over that too? Because it's the same thing. If something is done by a company to target a certain group for marketing reasons, to try and encourage more membership of those communities then it's less about discrimination and more about business procurement. And frankly the guy that is kicking up a stink about this is clearly reading too much into this. He seems to think he's doing this for men's rights yadda yadda, no it just looks like he's nitpicking because he wanted to go to the gym one day when they were having a woman's only day and he didn't like that. He probably kicked up a fuss and was difficult before storming off like a child.
    It really isn't a big deal, he can always go back another time and frankly it's not really much of a principle to fuss over. It's a really minor thing. He might not have better things to do but others might. He's being selfish and opportunistic by nitpicking over something irrelevant like this. What a ****.

    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?
    Clearly it's not comparable with separating black people and white people. To do that you are clearly separating the two because of racial tension and/or prejudice amongst other things. It's fair to say that it's a bad idea and it's wrong and to have such a thing is probably down to serious negativity and it's not defendable at all. Whereas having a woman's only hour might have very innocent reason, like the sort I have mentioned above. Really I think the comparison with black only hours or white only hours is completely bull****.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    It is a business open to the public, so it needs to act within the law. Restricting the gym to women at certain hours is basically the equivalent of having a whites-only hour.

    The latter example would be seen as clear racism, whereas the first often gets overlooked. The gym should either introduce mens-only hours as well or change the price for men since they can't use the gym at certain times so they are paying for a service they cannot use.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    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 ?
    I wouldn't like to claim I'm a "real feminist", exactly, as though anyone who says they are a feminist necessarily HAS to conform to my views. For example, I am very much pro-choice, but I don't think being pro-life is necessarily contradictory to being a feminist. It just bothers me when people assume that all feminists are out to shaft men and get the best deal for themselves, which is a very selfish and narrow kind of feminist, and I would say it contradicts the essential idea of feminism (equality).

    Front line combat is a difficult thing. In theory I'm all for women being on the front line alongside men, but I think actual practice has to be logical and reasonable. If having women there has a detrimental effect on the troops as a whole then I would say that is probably more important, given that it's a life-and-death situation (whereas in this gym scenario, women's discomfort doesn't seem worthy of unfair timetabling/pricing rules). To be honest, though, I'm open to hearing for or against it, because I'm a reasonable person and able to change my views in the face of decent arguments. Unfortunately most arguments re: feminism tend to be polemicised and extremely angry!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathsman77)
    But if you forget the profit (which to be fair is probably the most common reason), do you think they should cater to woman only hours assuming it has no effect on financial gain to the company?
    Well I would say that was fine, as long as there were other measures to ensure 'men's only hours' was also an option. I think it comes down to social norms, though.


    PS: HI
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If he is not able to use the gym during these hours then he should not be charged as much. That's the only validity to his argument.

    There is demand for this from women because, quite understandably, they feel uncomfortable working out when men are around and may be watching. It's totally okay to have women-only hours, provided that at the least men are not charged for those hours, and preferably there is somewhere that men can work out at that point.

    There is no point in men-only hours. Not only is there no demand, women do not ogle men as they work out in the same way men do women. It may happen now and again but the degree to which they are prevalent is not even comparable. If there was demand then there would be men-only hours, but there is not, so there is not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    So if a swimming pool does days where only people over 60 and mothers and babies can go that's discrimination too? Are you going to kick up an irrelevant fuss over that too? Discrimination my ass.



    If it's not for malicious or discriminative reasons then I think that takes a lot of sting out of the discrimination claim.



    What isn't there to get? It was a comparative example. Swimming pools have mother and baby hours and hours for people with kids and for people 60 and over. If someone is turned away because they fit neither of those catergories are you going to cause a stir over that too? Because it's the same thing. If something is done by a company to target a certain group for marketing reasons, to try and encourage more membership of those communities then it's less about discrimination and more about business procurement. And frankly the guy that is kicking up a stink about this is clearly reading too much into this. He seems to think he's doing this for men's rights yadda yadda, no it just looks like he's nitpicking because he wanted to go to the gym one day when they were having a woman's only day and he didn't like that. He probably kicked up a fuss and was difficult before storming off like a child.
    It really isn't a big deal, he can always go back another time and frankly it's not really much of a principle to fuss over. It's a really minor thing. He might not have better things to do but others might. He's being selfish and opportunistic by nitpicking over something irrelevant like this. What a ****.



    Clearly it's not comparable with separating black people and white people. To do that you are clearly separating the two because of racial tension and/or prejudice amongst other things. It's fair to say that it's a bad idea and it's wrong and to have such a thing is probably down to serious negativity and it's not defendable at all. Whereas having a woman's only hour might have very innocent reason, like the sort I have mentioned above. Really I think the comparison with black only hours or white only hours is completely bull****.
    That's correct.

    I'd point out that there is such a thing as "good and bad" discrimination, but it may be lost on people in this forum.
 
 
 
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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.