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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I'm not saying that. My problem is that a lot of people here are whining because of their general vendetta against women, not because they particularly care about this individual event. They are excusing what they're saying by claiming they want "Equality". What I'm saying is that if they want equality, they should worry about the real equality issues - which are generally against women - rather than cherry pick the few examples where men might not have complete equality. I completely agree that Saudi women have it worse off than us. Unfortunately, if I had used that as an argument, I would have been taken even less seriously.



    Then please make a thread asking the many male-only institutions to change their policy, too.
    which institutions are they? Like I said I think stuff like that should fall under the anti discrimination laws. They stop you from joining in activities with friends and family.
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Helper
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Isn't stuff like this against the law though? For example a bakery owned by Christians got sued a while ago because they refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

    This is pretty much the same thing.
    Not really if it's for a group that would find it traditionally more difficult. For example, poor students will often get extra help when going to university. If it's a group that is under-represented, in this case, women taking part in sport the way to create the equal opportunities is to make it slightly biased to help them.

    What you say is valid though. I'm not sure on the law around it. What I say is just from personal opinion.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Because someone started a thread on it, and I agreed with the linked article. I post in a variety of threads on this forum. There are presumably both "men's only" and "women's only" gyms, but I actually don't have much issue with them, because as only one gender can join, we don't have the issue that we have with this particular gym, where men and women pay the same fees, but women get more potential hours of use.

    Your point was essentially about how women apparently have it significantly more difficult than men, with the typical reference to the wage gap, which doesn't prove anything. There are vastly more men than women in prison - that doesn't mean something is "wrong" or that men are being discriminated against. There are loads of explanations for the gender difference in pay which do not involve discrimination.

    Simply saying "female managers get paid less than male managers", which is the strength of the argument that you were using, proves absolutely nothing.

    But there are no valid psychological and biological reasons why women may earn less than men? Of course there are.

    Exactly as I said, you are attempting to claim that any female disadvantage is due to discrimination, but claim that any male disadvantage is due to legitimate biological reasons. That is inconsistent. If men were living longer than women, people like you would be screaming from the rooftops about how it showed that society didn't care about women.
    My problem isn't the gym. My problem is the general attitude of some young men that they believe that they're the victims of a pro-female society which is rubbish.

    I don't really see the relevance of more men in prison. It's a completely different and unrelated issue.

    Why doesn't it prove anything that women are paid 30% less than men for doing exactly the same job? I'd have thought that stands for quite a lot.

    And what are these "valid psychological and biological" reasons that mean women earn less than men?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I'm not saying that. My problem is that a lot of people here are whining because of their general vendetta against women, not because they particularly care about this individual event. They are excusing what they're saying by claiming they want "Equality". What I'm saying is that if they want equality, they should worry about the real equality issues - which are generally against women - rather than cherry pick the few examples where men might not have complete equality. I completely agree that Saudi women have it worse off than us. Unfortunately, if I had used that as an argument, I would have been taken even less seriously.



    Then please make a thread asking the many male-only institutions to change their policy, too.
    I think it's a very important point to make. This sort of blatant an obvious sexism simply wouldn't be allowed against women here, because sexism against women is recognised as genuine. Think about it, imagine if there was a gym that had a male only hour but refused to give women the same or charge them less. There would be outrage. The sexism that occurs against women, in the sense of discrimination for jobs etc is harder to prove. Not to mention, women's choices also contribute.
    Yeah, Saudi women have it bad and if I saw a thread on that I'd comment how disgusting it was. I'm fact, I probably have. Doesn't mean this is okay, though.
    Incidentally I agree that male only institutions need to go.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)

    I don't really see the relevance of more men in prison. It's a completely different and unrelated issue.
    My point is that just because there is a difference between the genders doesn't mean that it is due to unfair discrimination.

    Why doesn't it prove anything that women are paid 30% less than men for doing exactly the same job? I'd have thought that stands for quite a lot.
    What do you mean by "exactly the same job"?

    And what are these "valid psychological and biological" reasons that mean women earn less than men?
    Having children and taking time out to look after them is the most obvious.

    And again, I maintain that if men were living longer than women, people would be outraged, and say that it shows how society isn't caring enough for women. But when women live longer than men, nobody cares. Note how the gender pay gap is plastered all over the media (despite there being loads of possible explanations besides discrimination), but nobody ever talks much about the "life expectancy gap".
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    lmao @ these guys wanting to be oppressed soo bad!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I thought about this thread on and off today considering what I thought about it. Initially I was tempted to say it was a fairly clear-cut example of inequality - in this case against men - but on further reflection it seems more to be the case that it's a mitigation of other inequalities already present.

    I can understand that some women feel intimidated using the gym with macho-types around, and I think these feelings are justified given that women probably do get unwanted attention from men when using the gym, the sort that men typically don't get at all. Thus it seems to me that there is inequality already extant in gyms, which can be ameliorated with a system such as the one employed by the gym at the centre of this controversy.

    In my opinion, the disparity of services does represent an inequality in favour of women, but an opposition to this is also a tacit support of greater inequality elsewhere. Perhaps there is a better approach the gym might take, but does the gym deserve to be sued or villified over it? No, I don't think so. The gym traded one inequality for another, seemingly lesser inequality. It's not perfect, but if it's a net positive, then it seems to deserve commendation over condemnation.
    Your first thought was right. I do understand your reasoning, but I have to disagree. If there is harassment in gyms, yes, gyms need to deal with it. But to segregate sexes and throw men out at some times isn't the answer. It is a minority of men, so why should all men be penalised?
    What they need is a strict anti harassment policy. Put up signs etc, encourage people to report it. Then gym staff deal with repeat offenders by warning first then ban if it persists (though I'm guessing most won't persist.)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    That isn't the point. The point is the inequality of service. Sure, have a women only hour, but either have a make equivalent or charge men less.
    fair enough about charging men less I guess.
    Men dont seem to have a problem being around women in a gym but a significant number of women do. If the market demand was there then you would get male only hours as well.

    But I agree with you on the charging less point, From what I understand, swimming pools and gyms that do that sort of thing do it on days of the week they plan on renting out facilities.

    So for example a swimming pool in my town, you could rent it out for a birthday party on Tuesday evenings but most of the time it was rented out by a Female Fitness group.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabrina3210)
    I agree with SamTheMan95, it does protect a womens modesty. I personaly wouldn't be comfortable working out ans sweating in my gym gear (tho im not overweight or anything) in front of men who are so obviously way fitter. Also having been ridiculed for going to the gym by guys outside of the gym theres no way i'd subject myself to tht kind of ridicule inside the gym, which is why i go to a womens only gym ������
    But obvs women who don't live near a womens only gym would want the womens only hours.
    What about women who are fitter? Why's it okay to swear in front of way fitter women but not fit men?
    And do you really think men should be kicked out of a gym for certain times because of your insecurities?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've been in the weights area for quite a while.
    I think this segregation of keeping the men and women apart is a bad thing it just encourages woman to be less secure around the men they just need to get over the fear . Most of the men don't bother me or they're helpful . I know they might look sometimes once you get to the workout you don't pay attention . It's normal to look at people, everyone looks at everyone.
    If the women don't want to train in weights area with the men around they should look for a womens only gym.
    It's unfair for the men to be unable to train at certain hours because of the women's insecurity. They should keep it equal.
    I really don't think this a time for woman only to train would make a difference. It's sometimes more due to them not wanting to lift weights fears of possibly becoming bulky or muscular or they'd rather stick to cardio or fitness classes because thats what they want to do and are used to. I've asked friends who go to the gym about lifting weights none of them want to and all give me those reasons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LavenderBlueSky88)
    That's just women being prissy princesses. If a woman is being harassed at the gym that's obviously wrong, but if it's just a case of being worried someone might see her in her gym gear then that's ridiculous.

    Being a woman myself who uses free weights, I've only maybe had one or two negative or sarcastic comments from guys. Most of the time I'm left alone to do my work out. The occasional comments I do get are usually positive or constructive and welcomed. Guys comment on other guy's routines and performance all the time, but as soon as a guy comments on a girl's he's a pervert and she doesn't want to exercise near men again. (obviously discounting actual cases of harassment which are another matter and need to be dealt with seriously by the gym).
    That's your interpretation. I could just as well say "that's just men being prissy princesses" about having to piss in front of women.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarcasticMel)
    That's your interpretation. I could just as well say "that's just men being prissy princesses" about having to piss in front of women.
    Well not really. Not even sure what point you're trying to make here.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Let's say that I accept your point for a moment (which I don't). There are hundreds of institutions in this country such as gentlemen's clubs, hotels, pubs and golf courses that only accept men, some accept women on the condition that they're coming with a man. I think that is much more sexist than a gym banning men for a couple of hours. Why aren't you getting wound up about this inequality?

    And if "Lol" is the best reaction you can come up with to the argument I spent time writing, I'm not going to bother responding anymore.



    There's something called "Biology". It's a science. I don't expect you to know much about this mythical science but as someone who does know a thing or two about biology, let me tell you that there are very valid biological and psychological reasons why women live longer than men. I know that you are desperate to demonise everything I say but at least make an effort rather than making claims a slightly educated 12 year old could refute.
    Absolute lol at trying to tell Chief Wiggum, a Cambridge medic, about Biology in such a patronising tone.

    Speaking of biology, I hope you're not under the impression that men and women have identical neuropsychological profiles. Because they don't - they are quite considerably genetically and biologically different. These differences play a large part in the different outcomes in life that you seem to be citing as evidence of women's oppression.

    Assuming you're a budding scientist, try to lay off the ideology and stick to the hard evidence. It'll serve you well in your future.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    When I have also seen women flirt with men in gyms(or in bars, or in public) showing off their figures I find it quite annoying that men get blamed for any harrassment when a lot of times its women encouraging it to happen, and before that gets taken out of context I am not saying women bring it on themselves as such just as I am saying men are not automatically perverts that want to have sex with every woman to see.

    I am a nervous MALE, I like to exercise in a corner by myself as feel like someone will tell me I am doing it wrong, or have people stare at me as I am self concious.

    I remember one time going to a gym and signing up for the weight loss class and when I got there finding out I was the only male and it was a mix of older women and younger girls who looked like they spent their life in the gym and the older women in particular were flirting with me joking about me "getting sweaty with them" or to "have a workout with them" so much so I left and was basically treated like a piece of meat.

    Why was that allowed since they were women?

    Most of the times anything that gives woman an advantage is seen as "so what" by females since its seen as any issues women have about men are automatically justified yet any for men towards women have are argued.
    I would hardly say "showing off their figures" constitutes "flirting"... Plus a load of giggling old women are incomparable to a person twice your size leering at you.

    I understand that you've received aggro from women at the gym - but at the end of the day, the opposite situation occurs far more frequently, hence the current arrangements many gyms have. Gyms aren't innately sexist, they organise themselves in a way to keep more members, but the increased income from a higher number of memberships must outweigh the increased expenditure (e.g. from holding male-only classes). Evidently far more women (than men) benefit from having their own section as the structure of many gyms reflect this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Britain claims to promote a multi-cultural and multi-faceted society, but what it really does is promote a 'One Size Fits All' approach. Just look at people's replies here.

    This country is advertised as a free market economy with an emphasis on capitalism. If women want women-only gyms and swimming pools, surely they have a right to access that service. If men want men-only gyms and swimming pools, surely they have a right to access that service. It doesn't disrespect, degrade or otherwise harm any party involved. Also, the female gender actually is a separate category to the male gender, and it is therefore expected that females have issues common only to females and would in some cases want to spend time with only females. The same should apply if you replaced 'females' with 'males' or with any other cultural, religious or other group. But nope...

    First, most of you having grown up here are encouraged to become sexually ambigous. Differentiating yourself based on your gender is simply unacceptable: it is wickedly and abstractedly immoral to you. This is reinforced by mainly non-scientific research which is the work of sociologists and psychologists.

    Second, due to a very PC agenda favoured by your leaders, you frequently confuse the two types of discrimination: (1) prejudice-based, hate-based discriminatory behaviour which aims to direspect an individual or category and (2) using one's judgement to distinguish right from wrong, black from white, male from female, theist from atheist, in other words, to tell things apart factually without disrespecting either side. Most of you can't realise, therefore, that discrimination isn't necessarily a negative thing, and that women wanting to exercise away from men is discriminatory because you are telling people apart by gender, but not in a negative way because it is not intended to be disrespectful.

    Third, due to the somewhat socialist society you live in, one person's actions have an impact on everyone else's. Some gyms and swimming pools are owned by councils funded by the taxpayer, so if a minority group (e.g. women wanting to exercise away from men) wanted something different, catering to their needs automatically becomes a dark heavy burden for everyone else. This attitude has stuck and prevails even when non-communal private services are in question - 'I am a man paying a membership fee therefore there should be no one hour or two hour sessions a week for females only. Uh, uh, I cannot afford it. Uh, it is wicked.' Therefore, everyone meddles in other people's affairs too much, and you cannot separate yourselves from the whole and become individuals, enough to allow for a sufficient level of personal freedom.

    I think women should be able to have women's only gym sessions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aldanyh)
    Britain claims to promote a multi-cultural and multi-faceted society, but what it really does is promote a 'One Size Fits All' approach. Just look at people's replies here.

    This country is advertised as a free market economy with an emphasis on capitalism. If women want women-only gyms and swimming pools, surely they have a right to access that service. If men want men-only gyms and swimming pools, surely they have a right to access that service. It doesn't disrespect, degrade or otherwise harm any party involved. Also, the female gender actually is a separate category to the male gender, and it is therefore expected that females have issues common only to females and would in some cases want to spend time with only females. The same should apply if you replaced 'females' with 'males' or with any other cultural, religious or other group. But nope...

    First, most of you having grown up here are encouraged to become sexually ambigous. Differentiating yourself based on your gender is simply unacceptable: it is wickedly and abstractedly immoral to you. This is reinforced by mainly non-scientific research which is the work of sociologists and psychologists.

    Second, due to a very PC agenda favoured by your leaders, you frequently confuse the two types of discrimination: (1) prejudice-based, hate-based discriminatory behaviour which aims to direspect an individual or category and (2) using one's judgement to distinguish right from wrong, black from white, male from female, theist from atheist, in other words, to tell things apart factually without disrespecting either side. Most of you can't realise, therefore, that discrimination isn't necessarily a negative thing, and that women wanting to exercise away from men is discriminatory because you are telling people apart by gender, but not in a negative way because it is not intended to be disrespectful.

    Third, due to the somewhat socialist society you live in, one person's actions have an impact on everyone else's. Some gyms and swimming pools are owned by councils funded by the taxpayer, so if a minority group (e.g. women wanting to exercise away from men) wanted something different, catering to their needs automatically becomes a dark heavy burden for everyone else. This attitude has stuck and prevails even when non-communal private services are in question - 'I am a man paying a membership fee therefore there should be no one hour or two hour sessions a week for females only. Uh, uh, I cannot afford it. Uh, it is wicked.' Therefore, everyone meddles in other people's affairs too much, and you cannot separate yourselves from the whole and become individuals, enough to allow for a sufficient level of personal freedom.

    I think women should be able to have women's only gym sessions.
    Nothing wrong with women's only gyms or sessions, but the point is, men had to pay the same membership fees at this particular gym, only to have limited use compared to women, which is unfair.

    If you go to a mixed gym, expect to exercise with men and women, don't moan about it. If you don't like it, find a single-sex gym or buy your own equipment.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by joker12345)
    Your first thought was right. I do understand your reasoning, but I have to disagree. If there is harassment in gyms, yes, gyms need to deal with it. But to segregate sexes and throw men out at some times isn't the answer. It is a minority of men, so why should all men be penalised?
    What they need is a strict anti harassment policy. Put up signs etc, encourage people to report it. Then gym staff deal with repeat offenders by warning first then ban if it persists (though I'm guessing most won't persist.)
    I suppose I'm sceptical that your solution would work. But like I said in my previous post, there may well be better solutions - but I don't think the one they chose is so terrible.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I suppose I'm sceptical that your solution would work. But like I said in my previous post, there may well be better solutions - but I don't think the one they chose is so terrible.
    Perhaps have a section in the gym for women only. My gym has that.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Ade9000)
    Perhaps have a section in the gym for women only. My gym has that.
    That'd work great and I'd support that. But men could still make the argument that women are getting preferential services for the same membership price. Difficult solution for smaller gyms as well I think.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    That'd work great and I'd support that. But men could still make the argument that women are getting preferential services for the same membership price. Difficult solution for smaller gyms as well I think.
    True. If it's a harassment issue, then it needs to be dealt with, as I'm sure a user has noted. Warnings, suspensions and then an outright ban.

    If it's insecurity and worry of others, then that's something they need to deal with, as many others have as well. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the impression that noone really gives a **** when you work out at the gym (unless you're doing something stupid, like hogging the barbell and just talking amongst your friends. hate those idiots).

    I think a women-only section is better than women-only hours because it's only one section of the gym that's barred from men (and it's not much, more of a very mini-gym) as opposed to being barred of from the entire gym for an hour or more.
 
 
 
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.