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 Dmon1Unlimited)
    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... you havent shown me how discrimination and adultery are the same regarding not being illegal...
    adultery is frivolous compared to discrimination... that is why the former is not illegal while the latter is... it would be considered general knowledge that adultery is frivolous... why do you think people campaign for people to be protected from discrimination and not adultery? youre just using an arbitrary common point they both share(that they are both bad) as justification, they arent that similar...just because it is not physical or involve damage or some kind, does not mean discrimination should be lumped into childish bullying, adultery and being mean... thats not exactly private property if its treated as a business is it now? letting in random people and whatnot...


    What do you mean comes under what you just said? explain yourself... 'saying to go elsewhere' is a stupid argument, also adding the exception that the government should intervene when everyone discriminates, is a stupid exception...

    Lloyd is entitled to be treated the same as any other customer that pays the same membership as him... he isnt paying for "male membership".. dont add in information to suit your argument...... he just got a membership, the same kind as a girl would get... there is no male membership... do you think that if he doesnt like it, then he can just go for the female membership or something? :lolwut: even if it does exist, it is still irrelevant. The owner can tell him when he first enters the gym that the male memberships are inferior, but that doesnt mean he is allowed to get away with it....

    if he allows minors or something, i can kind of understand, attract youth to be healthy and blah... however if they let 20 year olds have a cheaper price than 40 years for example, then that is age discrimination...

    so far, i have not seen a single significant reason that supports you thinking discrimination should not be illegal, that has not been countered already...
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    prison sentence is not an arbitrary number... it is one they seem to think is appropriate for the crime details... this leans more towards having a formula then it is to picking something arbitrary...
    <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.
    Offline

    15
    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.
    It's gym in partnership with a council - that is, the state.

    Not private enterprise. Partially taxpayer funded.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    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.
    on its own, no, but its frivolous compared to discrimination... discrimination is cold, your personality doesnt even weigh in to how people treat you, youre treated solely on something you cant easily change... with cheating, if youre an absolute prick, you cant say you werent expecting it... so yes, it is frivolous...

    is that really countering me or is it just changing subject...

    they dont have different membersips.... they should be paying to get the same access to the same stuff... in what way are they different memberships? if a girlish man or manish woman come into the gym, do the staff fight over which card they should give them? the man membership card or the woman membership card? no.... everyone has the same membership...

    in case you havent realised, i have countered all your arguments, you have yet to counter mine, rather you have been weaseling your way out with random reasons to justify yourself... look at your dopey property reasoning and how they collapsed fairly easily... you havent provided any signficant point that shows me that companies should get away with discrimination...

    show me why discrimination should be as legal as cheating is... ive already explained why the latter is frivolous while the former is not
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    <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.
    no it isnt set in stone but that doesnt mean the damn judge picks a random number, they make it proportional to the crime :facepalm: hence this isnt arbitrary...


    picking a random number on the top of your head as a prison sentence, that is arbitrary...
    what is currently being done, that isnt arbitrary... :lolwut:
    Offline

    16
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...men-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.
    Its about time.
    Women always want special treatment and yet don't want to pay for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Lol'd, another quality post by ArtGoblin
    if my memory is correct... youre not exactly the best at debating, so i wouldnt be making such obnoxious comments if i were you...
    a duck on a keyboard would have given better responses to me in that other thread than your 'kid ranting' arguments...
    Offline

    14
    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.
    i was a little bit surprised by this post to be honest, thought the ball had been dropped (a little).

    i wouldnt have made the african statement if i were him but personally i see nothing wrong with him... not only did he try to talk to the owner before suing them, he gave multiple options for them, which all seem fair

    A) maintain a women’s hour but introduce a men's alternative for fairness, B) keep women’s hour (and only women’s hour) but annually charge men less, or C) scrap single-gender sessions altogether.
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    if my memory is correct... youre not exactly the best at debating, so i wouldnt be making such obnoxious comments if i were you...
    a duck on a keyboard would have given better responses to me in that other thread than your 'kid ranting' arguments...
    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"

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    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"

    and yet again, another moronic post from you... you cant think of something smart to bring to the table, so you bring in stupid jokes to compensate...

    :rolleyes: more child like gifs/images from you eh?

    go on smart ass, tell me whats wrong with the sentence... the fact that i missed out the word "as"? :facepalm:
    the other user made a stupid point, thinking i may just be thinking all bad things are illegal or something, i was correcting him... or do you also want to add another nail to the dumbass coffin that youre in by admitting that you also think discrimination should be allowed legally? huh?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    and yet again, another moronic post from you... you cant think of something smart to bring to the table, so you bring in stupid jokes to compensate...

    :rolleyes: more child like gifs/images from you eh?

    go on smart ass, tell me whats wrong with the sentence... the fact that i missed out the word "as"? :facepalm:
    the other user made a stupid point, thinking i may just be thinking all bad things are illegal or something, i was correcting him... or do you also want to add another nail to the dumbass coffin that youre in by admitting that you also think discrimination should be allowed legally? huh?
    Clearly my post ITT doesn't disagree with you

    Doesn't change the fact that you type like a cretin
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Clearly my post ITT doesn't disagree with you

    Doesn't change the fact that you type like a cretin
    what is ITT?

    my posts are fairly easy to understand, they may not be perfect (nor do i care if it is perfect) but the point still comes across... if you couldnt understand the quote you posted then you may have learning difficulties...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    :eek: 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.
    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.

    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    i was a little bit surprised by this post to be honest, thought the ball had been dropped (a little).

    i wouldnt have made the african statement if i were him but personally i see nothing wrong with him... not only did he try to talk to the owner before suing them, he gave multiple options for them, which all seem fair
    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 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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    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.
    i dont know anything about the guy, mainly just going by the article here

    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.
    i was mainly talking about what i think should be the right thing to do for a mixed gym, rather than what would make the best business plan against single sex gyms (i.e. if all gyms were mixed, then this is what i think they should do). im not a fan of single sex gyms personally. if there is a women only gym, it would be understandable if there is a men only gym nearby, but if there is no gym around me except for a womens gym, then that is a bit of a piss take... would also be a piss take if it were the other way round. i think all gyms should allow either sex. i dont mind single sex sessions (they have their benefits obviously), provided they fulfill the points mentioned earlier. if people dont want to pay more, then the most appropriate option would be to have men and women pay the same and allow single sex sessions to both men and women

    but yh, if youre going to use both mixed sex and single sex sessions (within the same gym), then i would have to say women (and men) should get the main gym membership and pay extra each time they want a single sex session.
 
 
 
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.