Man sues gym due to sexist policies

[Churchill]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...men-hours.html

When I became a member of my local gym, it was to exercise my body - not my human rights. But that's exactly what I'm doing with the Kentish Town Sports Centre in north London.

The venue, owned by fitness company Better in association with Camden Council, attracts hundreds of people from all sections of society: religious, atheist, male, female, young and old. There is no dominant demographic. Everybody is welcome and everybody gets on.

But not everybody is equal.

Because, in an age of political over-correctness, they ban all men and boys for 442 hours every year - simply because they are male.

Adding insult to injury, they still charge them the same full-price membership fee as women, but refuse to offer the equivalent option of male-only sessions.

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.

Fair? I think not. But, because we live in an age of acceptable misandry, most people are too polite to say anything.

Not me.

Several weeks ago, I formally complained to the general manager, asking him to change the policy with one of three alternatives: 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.
Hardly controversial.

After all, if demand for women-only sessions is so great then the gym should put their money where their mouth is and fund it themselves.

Unsurprisingly, they declined.

This takes on an even greater significance when you consider that women feel even more self-conscious when taking part in sport and physical activity when men are present. If you are wondering who or what [we are] it's a charity that specialises in increasing women’s physical activity levels.'

Translated into plain English, this means that a group of agenda-driven feminists say a minority of women 'feel' bad about their bodies. And because heterosexual men are naturally attracted to women, their very existence makes it worse, so they should be banned.

No, seriously.

That's like trying to clean a dirty face by rubbing a mirror.

A report by the Women Sport and Fitness Foundation showed that a significant proportion of women 'hate the way they look when they exercise'

It also assumes that all men in the gym are straight, when many of them are gay and have no interest in the female aesthetic. In fact, if they really wanted to, these men could be voyeuristic in the showers. So what next - gay and straight hours? And what about lesbians - can they attend women-only sessions, or would it make their straight sisters uncomfortable? Gimme a break.

If these women have issues with their bodies, I truly sympathise - but it's their problem, not mine. Nor is it any other man's.

And who's to say we don't have our own body hang-ups? We know for a fact that increasing numbers of men suffer from anorexia and bulimia as well as 'bigorexia' - the need to be as muscular as possible. Rates of men having cosmetic surgery are also increasing year-on-year, so the facts speak for themselves.

Interestingly, women's hour also has little to do with religion. The gym have scarcely used faith to justify their policy, but - even if they did - it still wouldn't excuse their unequal price structure.

Want women-only sessions for religious reasons? Fine - more power to you. But don't ask men to pay for 442 hours they can't possibly use. No God would approve of that.

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.

Tellingly, the gym's policy also assumes that only men can objectify the opposite sex. But if TV shows like Sex and the City taught us anything, it's that women can be just as forthright. In fact, only two weeks later, I was forced to complain when four teenage girls were wolf-whistling at boys in the weights area – jeering and laughing, while ranking them by size.

This wouldn't be acceptable if the sexes were reversed, so why is it tolerated here?
This is precisely why I’m suing them for gender bias. Not simply because their policy is unfair, but because it pathologises masculinity while simultaneously repressing it.
As far as I'm concerned it also breaks the law.

So far, the legal team at Camden Borough Council have simply made me laugh. They've spent hours quoting Harriet Harman's Equality Act, but continue to miss the point. No customer, male or female, should pay for gym time they're not allowed to use. It's that simple.

Ultimately, however, it has nothing to do with money. At best, I want a 10 per cent refund; something I would donate to men's charity CALM (Campaign Against Living Miserably), but, like the test case of mis-sold PPI, it would empower other men to demand the same compensation - hitting the gym where it hurts.

But, finances aside, the Kentish Town Sports Centre has a social responsibility to encourage equality as well as physical health. Forcing men - whether 70 year-old pensioners or 13 year-old boys who attend with their mothers - to leave a room because of their gender, rather than their behaviour, is degrading. It's also eerily reminiscent of when African Americans were separated from their caucasian peers in 1940s America.

Not least because the underlying maxim is the same. In this instance, that all men are inherently bad. This is a toxic message to send out, especially when those affected are frequently young boys in crucial stages of puberty and self-development.

Such messages are pernicious. They criminalise men for being male, while telling women that they have less responsibility to contribute to functional gender relations.

Interestingly, it's not just patrons who are angered. Last week I spoke with two of the gym's male fitness instructors who expressed their frustration with the ban - not least because, in the middle of a double-dip recession, neither can work during female-only sessions. It's insane.

Fortunately, I have other helpful supporters who want to liberate them. Erin Pizzey, the woman who established the world's first-ever domestic violence shelter in 1972 before becoming a men's rights activist, has offered her backing. 'This discrimination has no place in modern society', she said.

Meanwhile, equality charity Parity and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell have described my fight as 'sensible and fair'.

Stateside, U.S. website AVoiceForMen.com have recently added their weight to my case.

Now, I ask common sense and British law to do the same.

Being a test case, my claim has sparked global interest because of its potential impact. If I win, gyms all over the country could be forced to update their policies.

And rightly so.

Not only would this be physically healthy for people who want to exercise without restriction, but it would also be socially healthy for those who understand the toxicity of sexism, whether directed at men or women.

For some, this might be a revelation in itself, but trust me: it comes from a place of genuine fairness.

Yes, my case may raise some eyebrows, but hopefully it will also raise some consciousness. Because, currently, the staff at my gym are telling our young men they're dangerous by default.

And that's a weight no man should learn to carry.
\

Daily mall, etc.

Also, Daily mall voice of reason, etc.

Gym is supported by the city council in their actions.

[JigglyJam]

So this gym has an hour or two everyday dedicated to women only and forces males out before each session? From a business standpoint that doesn't make any sense and would be a huge pain in the ass to keep up with for really everybody.

[Byrthnoth]

His request makes sense. I mean, having "whites only" hour would be socially unacceptable even if "teh colordz" genuinely did make some whiteys too self-conscious to go work out. You'd get a similar response to "rich-people onry" hour, although this is absolutely still done in different ways. The real question you're left with is whether the female/male distinction is somehow more valid than the others.

I'd argue it is. The different genders need different things, behave in a different way, and take satisfaction from different things. As much as we talk about equality, you'd be delusional to ignore the differences between the genders. Male and female animals are really, really different. They're probably the most similar for humans of all the vertebrates I can think of, but that really isn't saying much. When people do behavioral research with rodents, they generally only use males. Females behave totally differently from the males and change their behavior based on their estrous cycle. The inherent differences between males and females justify different behavior and different treatment.

I basically disagree with the "separate ... (is) inherently unequal" statement. Humans have been trading separate quantities of equal value for a long time. It is easiest to ignore the evidence and rigorously treat everyone as if they're the same, but it's not realistic and I don't think it leads to the optimal society. We need to trade concessions among groups with different scientifically-identified needs/wants to increase the average happiness.

The policy seems logical to me and the author explained an adequate justification for it, so all that's left is his ~10% rebate, a ~10% increase in the cost of female membership, or the creation of two different gender-specific memberships that people are free to purchase or not purchase. As long as they are separate products, the price can be equal and the females can just get a better deal. If males drop their subscription, then it would make sense for the gym owner to decrease the cost of male memberships to compensate. In cases like this, I'm willing to just lean on the free market.

[Dryr]

Women getting preferential treatment in everyday life? Outrageous!1!

They'll start expecting others to pay for all their group activities and excuse themselves from mundane physical chores with no explanation if this stands!

[Tajin]

His request makes sense.
The policy seems logical to me and the author explained an adequate justification for it, so all that's left is his ~10% rebate.

Agree with this.

[Charismatic]

Women come in and bust up all the male-only/male-dominated spaces and then try to make female-only stuff.
Makes me laugh every time. Glad to see this happening.

[Niiro]

His request makes sense. I mean, having "whites only" hour would be socially unacceptable even if "teh colordz" genuinely did make some whiteys too self-conscious to go work out. You'd get a similar response to "rich-people onry" hour, although this is absolutely still done in different ways. The real question you're left with is whether the female/male distinction is somehow more valid than the others.

I'd argue it is. The different genders need different things, behave in a different way, and take satisfaction from different things. As much as we talk about equality, you'd be delusional to ignore the differences between the genders. Male and female animals are really, really different. They're probably the most similar for humans of all the vertebrates I can think of, but that really isn't say much. When people do behavioral research with rodents, they generally only use males. Females behave totally differently from the males and change their behavior based on their estrous cycle. The inherent differences between males and females justify different behavior and different treatment.

I basically disagree with the "separate ... (is) inherently unequal" statement. Humans have been trading separate quantities of equal value for a long time. It is easiest to ignore the evidence and rigorously treat everyone as if they're the same, but it's not realistic and I don't think it leads to the optimal society. We need to trade concessions among groups with different scientifically-identified needs/wants to increase the average happiness.

This is something I think too many people fail to recognize when talking about sex and gender issues.

The differences between a man of one race and a man of another are arbitrary, the differences between a man and a woman are fundamental. We accept this without even realizing it to the point where if someone does object to different treatment based on sex due to these fundamental differences their arguments are often dismissed as being ridiculous.

We often use the civil rights movement as an analogue to the women's rights (eventually gender equality) movement, but the comparisons break down at a certain point for the aforementioned reasons. One of the easiest ways to exemplify this is to ask the seemingly stupid question of why do men and women have separate public bathrooms? Why is there no movement to integrate public showers? Locker rooms? It was considered discriminatory to separate these things based on race but we're all fine with separating them based on sex because we passively acknowledge and accept these fundamental differences (there are groups out there I'm sure that push for unisex bathrooms and the like but as I said, they're largely dismissed or ignored).

A more contemporary example is the debate about women in the military, a situation where the fundamental differences between the sexes are extremely relevant; war is not an equal opportunity employer. No one will argue that women don't deserve the right to serve their country and earn the respect and admiration afforded to any male soldier, but are we willing to incur the risks and costs (both monetary and human) of completely integrating men and women in the military based on that ideal?

Basically the point is that absolute gender equality is an unattainable goal, it's something we should always strive for whenever possible but not without acknowledging its limitations (which have and do change over time).

[Dimmauk]

Women come in and bust up all the male-only/male-dominated spaces and then try to make female-only stuff.
Makes me laugh every time. Glad to see this happening.

I agree. Dont some Gold's gyms have women only workout areas?

[NynJa]

Problem is that men aren't a protected class and women are, a court probably won't look at this policy with any degree of scrutiny.

Problem is women want equality, but when shit works to their advantage, its not a problem. Though thats not entirely related to this thread, since women didnt really demand this (i think) and it was still the owners choice to follow suit.

[Draylo]

I see stuff like this all the time, anytime there's a complaint its met with "man up" or some shit. Must be nice getting special treatment yet demanding equality all the time I guess.

[Headspace]

so much oppression in this thread

[NynJa]

If it were the other way around, and the gym kicked all women out for an hour (how does it come to 442 hours a year?), would feminist groups be in a massive uproar? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.

[Odin'sLaw]

If it were the other way around, and the gym kicked all women out for an hour (how does it come to 442 hours a year?), would feminist groups be in a massive uproar? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.

the hours is based off of 1 hour per day then some additional hours on bank holidays normally, its right tho when your paying £36 (about $50) a month and 30 of them hours your not allowed into the Gym you've had to pay for (Women's hour normally been a peak hour after work 6-7 7-8 kind of deal) you should be able to get a discount because you have a outie and not an innie, now i have no problem with Women only classes because some activities are a bit more woman orientated or some yoga classes where women get a little embarrassed with some of the positions makes perfect sense, but not when you turn the whole gym into One Sex Only, i remember years and years ago (might have even been the 80's) there was men only Gym's who had to become unisex gym's because it was Sexist

[Kuya]

I think women should just start saying equity rather than equality, to see if anti-feminists will find something new to bitch about.

[hey]

Is it the entire gym that is closed off to men, or just a small area? Seems like an important detail that wasn't mentioned..

[Plow]

I see stuff like this all the time, anytime there's a complaint its met with "man up" or some shit. Must be nice getting special treatment yet demanding equality all the time I guess.

I like how when women ask for equality it's met with "but you need to respect the differences between the sexes!", and when someone tries to do something beneficial for women it's "BUT U WANT EQUALITY!!!?!?!!?"

[Cleverness]

I actually agree with what he's saying, but that's because he presented it VERY well and usually when situations like this hit the news that is really never ever EVER the case, and he's making a logical point based on paying the same monthly fee but receiving less gym access than a female counterpart. This really seems like it should have been an easy fix for the gym; either lower the membership fee appropriately for men, or lower it for both and charge extra(to bring it back up to the original price) so women can have access to this women's only hour in the first place or receive a small discount if they choose not to exercise that option and would have to vacate as well if they didn't(if the demand at this specific gym for womens only hour is even that large in the first place).

If feminists hop on this though it's gonna turn into a shitstorm.

[Ashmada]

On one hand, yes, it is discriminatory.

On the other hand, finding very hard to care.

On the third mutated hand, can't the guy just take his business elsewhere?
Or buy a home kit that'll be cheaper in the long run, is available whenever he wants, and doesn't require interaction with those sweatbags we have the desipient idea to call people*?




*Pre-whoosh (in a community that includes at least one Mazmaz, it's a sensible precaution): misanthropy exaggerated for comedic effect.

[Helm]

I suddenly feel underprivileged.

[Yugl]

Does anyone disagree with the optional discount/additional fee (Women would have to opt to join during these sessions) though?