Man sues gym due to sexist policies

[Rhinox]

Yeah Fuck women

[Sepukku]

For the 5-10% difference in fees, he gets to enjoy watching members of the opposite sex, some of them attractive, get sweaty in tight/form fitting clothing.

Sure, women get to see some fit guys get sweaty too, but women are less visual than men... probably to a tune greater than 5-10%.

((Stupid policy is stupid though))

[Kuya]

I'm not sure about the policy. As a man, i don't have to deal with trying to exercise while guys keep bothering you with propositions or creepily staring at you while you exercise. In fact, stuff like that is exactly why i avoid the local gay gym.

[Kuya]

Maybe the owners should start a gay gym as a solution. I know the gay gym here is ironically full of women precisely because they'll be left alone. Much to the chagrin of gay men.

[BerenTebogo]

I have never, and have never personally seen, someone active try to hit on a rando girl at a gym.

And I have a WOW membership.

I'm sure it does happen, but idk man.

Also about the policy: if it's at peak hours it is kinda bullshit to not give the men a discount, especially if the gym is not 24/7. If it's in off-hours then it's a bit less bullshit. But if ai get out of work and it takes me an hour to get home, change, and to the gym and then the gym is closed from 6-7 how is that not a refund-worthy inconvenience?

[Yugl]

For the 5-10% difference in fees, he gets to enjoy watching members of the opposite sex, some of them attractive, get sweaty in tight/form fitting clothing.

Sure, women get to see some fit guys get sweaty too, but women are less visual than men... probably to a tune greater than 5-10%.

((Stupid policy is stupid though))

I'm not sure the distinction in frequency (If any exists) is relevant here. You have zero, on-the-spot, insight into what surrounding members are visualizing. If they're leering at you, saying women less frequently visualize doesn't change the discomfort (In other words, you don't sit there and say "Oh, but women have 20% less chance of visualizing than men, so I'm absolutely comfortable with this"). If there's no justification via frequency, can we argue absolutes? No. There are male individual uncomfortable with exercising around females. Assuming they cannot accommodate a male counterpart, optional additional fees for participation are an alternative.

[archibaldcrane]

"Vote with your dollars" would apply here, but then again that's a libertarian's dream scenario too - "If those darkies don't like riding on the back of the bus, why don't they just take a different bus?"

[Uzor]

"Vote with your dollars" would apply here, but then again that's a libertarian's dream scenario too - "If those darkies don't like riding on the back of the bus, why don't they just take a different bus?"

That's what we did in Sweden. "Oh, you don't have a Swedish name and look like an immigrant? Here, you get to ride this special buss exclusive just for you."

Seriously though; I've always hated how women want equality, but at the same time demand differential treatment to their benefit. Like, say, child care. During a divorce, it is highly likely that men will draw the short stick, even though both parts deserve equal time with the kids.

[test123]

[hey]

There's a few good points in there, but holy shit that's dumb as hell.

[Kalmado]

I have never, and have never personally seen, someone active try to hit on a rando girl at a gym.

And I have a WOW membership.

I'm sure it does happen, but idk man.

Also about the policy: if it's at peak hours it is kinda bullshit to not give the men a discount, especially if the gym is not 24/7. If it's in off-hours then it's a bit less bullshit. But if ai get out of work and it takes me an hour to get home, change, and to the gym and then the gym is closed from 6-7 how is that not a refund-worthy inconvenience?

When a buddy of mine moved to a new city by himself his #1 reason for getting a gym membership was to hit on girls. He said he read in Maxim or something it was a good spot to meet girls(lol right). While I don't agree with the policy, I wouldn't be stressed about this as it's just not that important.

[Charismatic]

To you.
Fortunately, Mr. Lloyd feels differently.

[Kalmado]

To you.
Fortunately, Mr. Lloyd feels differently.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad someone is complaining about it. For myself, this is a "choose your battles" situation where I wouldn't prioritize this, and that's mainly because someone else will.

[archibaldcrane]

"Women" are not legally a protected "class" in America.

"Sex" is. You can, in general, no more deny a woman from, say, employment (or housing) in America than you can a man, legally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.[1] The term describes characteristics or factors which cannot be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:

Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information – Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

And in regards to heightened or "intermediate" scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interme...2heightened.22

An example of a court using intermediate scrutiny came in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), which was the first case in the United States Supreme Court which determined that statutory or administrative sex-based classifications were subject to an intermediate standard of judicial review.

[Ashmada]

"Vote with your dollars" would apply here, but then again that's a libertarian's dream scenario too - "If those darkies don't like riding on the back of the bus, why don't they just take a different bus?"

Right in principle, of course, but slight difference in scope, wouldn't you say?


Anyway, if I was the journalist, I'd have run a different title: "Straight man found in gym - Armaggeddon is at hand". Subtitle: "The apocalyptic chain of events, not the movie. Thankfully".

[archibaldcrane]

what the fuck are you rambling about

[Mertron]

give women back ladies night at the bar in exchange

[BaneTheBrawler]

He should just make it a point to work out at the door and hold it open for ladies when they enter/leave, offer to spot for them, etc. Because it would be a privilege.

[Tarage]

Because it would be a privilege.

I see what you did there.

[Khajit]

For the 5-10% difference in fees, he gets to enjoy watching members of the opposite sex, some of them attractive, get sweaty in tight/form fitting clothing.

Sure, women get to see some fit guys get sweaty too, but women are less visual than men... probably to a tune greater than 5-10%.

((Stupid policy is stupid though))

It's the opposite actually. If you hooked up a woman to a brain scanner of some sort then flashed images just long enough to find the Pre-conscious reactions you'd discover that women are actually more visual than men from the portions of the brain that light up associated with sexual excitement. It probably just looks the other way due to women hiding it better and/or there being multiple other criteria to judge upon not dependent on personality.
I dont see why he cant be annoyed at having to pay money to be locked out of a place he paid to have constant access to.