I wonder if he knew about the women only hour when he joined.

The proposed solutions seen pretty reasonable to me.

For a 'Girls Night Out' poster.--He was a male nurse-- and won. He said it was exclusionary, and I think hostile, I don't remember.

This wasn't well thought out, it seem odd that they couldn't have specific gender separated classes, like Yoga or aerobics say, that didn't impede this man's access to a product he's paying for.

But the solutions are reasonable as you say.

Businesses can undertake any sort of marketing campaign they wish.

This is a marketing tactic.

would it be marketing then?

in establishing the discriminatory intent of such a racial policy.

The intent of this policy is clearly not to discriminate against men, but to offer a service they feel appeals to their members.

of course it is discrimination against the male members of that gym.

for certain reasons, even for things open to the public. Bathrooms are one example. Clothing stores - another example. Only a women's bathroom in a ladies dress shop is another example.

Gyms having ladies-only hours are not common these days. It used to be very common. There was even a gym here not so long ago that was only for women. It might still be there, but I doubt it. Probably didn't make enough money.

And actually...if it's a private gym, I believe they can also refuse to accept blacks at all, if they want. Or women. Or men. Or anyone they choose.

We are referring to mixed gyms..

Would it be OK for a gym that accepted all races to have different times for blacks and whites?

That's my understanding of the law. That's why you have golf clubs that don't accept Jews or women or blacks, and when some do, they may not have full membership.

geeze.

being public businesses, are just as 'discriminatory,' though i don't think that's quite the right word.

i went to a women's only gym for a while because i personally found it way more comfortable there -- but i recognized it was 'discriminatory'. i don't care much personally about that kind of discrimination, but possibly i'd feel differently if there had only been one facility in town, and it was only for men.

the point being, you can't have it both ways.

just the same as a 'whites only' or 'blacks only' gym. you could call that a 'marketing tactic' too, & i'm sure there are segments of the 'market' that would respond -- but it's still discriminatory.

If so, how is this service different?

"How silly (the man) could just join another gym."

Of course there's plenty of DUers who thought post #2 was just fine, including you evidently since I didn't see you responding to that one.

I'm guessing that you're using "discriminatory" as shorthand for unfair or illegal discrimination, which is a pretty common practice.

This particular policy is absolutely discriminatory, by definition. Whenever you distinguish between "a" and "b", you are discriminating. The question is whether the discrimination is it unfair or illegal discrimination.

Sorry if I appear to be nit-picking, but it seems like "discriminate" has acquired an undeserved bad connotation and I just thought we should be clear on our terms.

the price he was going to pay, and the hours that were open for him. He is free not to join if he doesn't want to.

What an anal guy. Must be nice to have such a great life that you can muddy it up with nonsense like this. He obviously doesn't have to worry about supporting a family, working long hours, putting up with a stressful job, mowing the lawn, repairing the plumbing, stretching his hard earned dollar to feed his kids, taking the kids to daycare, replacing the tv that just broke, buying electronics for his relative in a nursing home, going for his cancer treatments, figuring out how to afford health ins. now that he's been laid off, etc., etc. Must be nice to have the luxury of being anal.

I was pointing out that the practice was discriminatory. I wasn't suggesting that it was illegal.

Discrimination means to make a distinction or to distinguish. When I choose an apple in preference to an orange, I'm discriminating. Some folks, not me, have discriminating tastes. It's not illegal.

Illegal discrimination is illegal.

hour a week for their money that men don't get.

they should either give a 'men's only' hour or charge men less.

What may fly here might not there, and vice versa.

I'm of two minds about this. I think that one hour a day, unless it's the first or last hour, intereferes in the flow of the day and might be problematic for someone who was working out. I can see his point about pricing, too. They don't have equal amounts of open hours available to them.

I've belonged to many gyms. I've never felt the need to go to a single sex gym. I have no problem working out around men, and I find that most of them are focused on their workouts and not bugging the women in the gym. (Always exceptions, but then I'm more focused on working out, so I don't really notice anything going on at the gym, myself!)

There are certain classes I would never take (like the striptease class at Crunch) because I feel like some men go just to ogle the women. So I can understand in some circumstances why women would feel uncomfortable. But, I assume women who go to those classes are aware of the attention they get from the guys. It's a striptease class, afterall!

On their website, it says:

illegal to discriminate.

llike...I discriminate between the deepness of the color of the apples I buy. That's not illegal.

There is legal and illegal discrimination.

eg age discrimination is not always illegal. There may be special laws making it tougher for someone over or under a certain he to get a license to drive.

eg gender discrimination: women do not have to register for selective service.

And so on....

Women do not have to register for selective service. But that is not discrimination. YOU may feel that it is discriminatory against men. But legally, it's not.

I'm in the legal business.

The dictionary definition has no legal disqualifier.

There's such a thing as legal discrimination. Trucking companies aren't required to hire blind candidates.

You're "in the legal business"? Great. Then you know that laws that discriminate on the basis of sex are not per se unconstitutional/illegal. They are subject to intermediate scrutiny. The government must show that the law furthers an important governmental interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co: "our precedents require that gender-based discriminations must serve important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76, 85, 99 S.Ct. 2655, 2661, 61 L.Ed.2d 382 (1979); Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 279, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 1111, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979); Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313, 316-317, 97 S.Ct. 1192, 1194, 51 L.Ed.2d 360 (1977); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 456, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976)."

In other words, simply because a law discriminates between men and women does not mean that it is illegal discrimination. As long as the gender based discrimination satisfies intermediate scrutiny, it is permissible gender based discrimination.

Schlesinger v. Ballard: "Although it contains no Equal Protection Clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits the Federal Government from engaging in discrimination that is "so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process."

Califiano v. Goldfarb: "In any event, gender-based discriminations against men have been invalidated when they do not serve important governmental objectives and are not substantially related to the acheivement of those objectives."

Implicit in these last two quotes is the notion that there is justifiable (i.e. legal) discrimination.

A law doesn't become "discriminatory" when it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment or title 7 as you're arguing. It becomes impermissibly or unlawfully discriminatory or an example of "invidious discrimination" when it does.

Or are you saying there should be? "We're going to make more money from this, so therefore this can't be discrimination"? It would have been an 'interesting' reply to segregated lunch counters - "oh, don't worry, this is a marketing tactic". In fact, that was pretty much Rand Paul's take on the Civil Rights Act, wasn't it? It's OK to discriminate, as long as it's part of business?

owned, and 'public' in the sense of being open to the public for business.

a business can cater to certain market segments, but it can't *exclude* others without a substantial reason (so substantial i can't think of any off the top of my head). that's been codified in court cases for some time.

your using 'private' as though it were a club not open to the public and not in business for profit. iow, you're using 'private' wrong.

A private membership gym is freedom of association, under the law, is my understanding. They can refuse to sell you a membership for any reason at all, as long as it's not federally prohibited (race, religion), I think. (note that gender is not federally protected in that scenario).

Don't shoot the messenger. Just letting you know. If you have to pay to join, it's a private club. There are bars like that, golf clubs, health clubs, etc. As long as they don't take federal funds.

too. are you saying they can just sell to men if they want, or hindis or 1 legged dwarves or whatever?

they can't.

if you do not want people of the opposite gender in a gym when you work out, you join a gym that is women-only or men-only.

I use it sometimes, but only because it's usually less crowded than the rest of the gym. (It's often empty.) There are days when I don't feel like fighting for the dumbells.

he has no case, IMO. If they introduced this policy after he signed a membership contract, then IMO he has a case and they should reimburse him.

I'm female and self conscious about my body when working out, so I joined a gym that is affiliated with a major hospital based rehab program and a local residential weight loss program. Lots of elderly and out of shape people go there, so I fit right in, and don't feel self conscious. Problem solved.

If the gym owner notices that many women don't like coming to the gym because guys leer at them, or they are simply worried guys are going to leer at them, then it's simply good business to have "women only" hours.

I'm pretty sure if a large number of potential male customers felt the same way about women in the gym then the gym owner would establish "male only" hours because that too would be good business too.

Personally I don't think this is the same thing as racism. Yeah, "reverse racism" exists, and "reverse sexism" too, but it's rare and overwhelmed by straightforward racism and sexism. Every attempt to compensate for those flaws in a society is not discrimination against the white guy or whatever other group has the power in that society.

It's always been my experience that the creepier people hanging around gyms, nude beaches, swimming pools, etc., are almost overwhelmingly men. I think it was these creepier guys who killed the more casual attitudes toward nudity that existed in many places during the 'sixties and 'seventies. There was always some asshole hiding in the bushes with binoculars or a telephoto lens on his camera, or out in the crowd making rude remarks about women's bodies.

It may be a double standard on my part, but I think this guy is full of it, and the web page you linked to is full of it too, especially the photo they chose as an illustration.

For either, or just one, gender. I don't think it's illegal even to refuse to sell memberships to people based on race or religion. Think of the golf clubs that don't accept women or blacks, still. It's legal.

country clubs, are for-profit, I believe. Their goal is not to break even at the end of the year. They make money by selling booze, memberships, food, etc. There are some public golf clubs, where even I could go! They are not allowed to select who may go there.

It's whether they take federal funds.

So a sports bar that charges to join as a member is a private club and can choose its hours, its members, etc.

discriminating. women are getting 52 hours/year more of gym availability than men are for the same price.

i think that couldn't stand if challenged in court unless the court took a very narrow view of the case (that he contracted for that situation knowingly).

it's discriminatory to a class of people. whether it's sexist, reverse sexist or not -- is pretty much irrelevant. it's discriminatory.

i think women's or men's only gyms are also discriminatory, in the same way a single-sex pool or golf course or sports facility would be, though i personally prefer women's only gyms. but i don't see how you can justify it without special pleading, like 'ladies night' in a bar.

...joined the gym and paid some membership money upfront. If instead he joined knowing those hours were in place then I'd have to agree with you.

Don't know why the club didn't refund. They did cut the hours AFTER the guy joined.

At one of my gyms it was the aqua classes that were at one time 100% 50+ ladies, many of them rather fat, in bathing suits. Some of the men wanted to join and the women had a hissy because they didn't want the men to see all their fat and waddles in swim suits. The men finally won and the aqua classes have been coed for over a decade now. There was also a dust up about women using the weight room. Well, we do. I can tell the guys often don't like it but that's the way the bar bell bounces.

I only ever see older women in there...but that would be a solution

mental fitness isn't much a part of gyms .

Either there's equality or there's not. Isn't this whole concept of giving women their own hours because "they feel more self conscious around men" inherently insulting to women anyway? What, women are so fragile that they can't deal with being in the same room as men now? That's the implication, anyway.

Just so you know....it's sort of like a pat on the head term.

But as for the substance of your post, it is not illegal for a private club to set hours as they see fit, or sell memberships to whoever they choose, or to set fees at whatever rates they want.

This guy knew the hours available to him (or should have known - it's probably in the flyer, and there are probably signs), and the amount he was agreeing to pay. Case closed.

I've gone to gyms for years, but not so much lately. There is a difference. Some women don't feel comfortable exercising around men. Men, however, WANT women at the gym, usually. Or rather, they want certain kinds of women. That's why some men go, while others go purely for the exercise.

The reason some women don't feel comfortable is that...some of the positions for the exercises are crotch oriented and such. We live in a sexist society where women are regarded by many men as sex objects. Men will stare at the boobs, the crotches, be convinced she's dressed alluringly like that because she wants him to stare at her boobs, or whatever. Seriously. Women use the machines where their legs go all over the place. They're not standing there lifting weights, like some men, or sitting down doing lateral pull downs.

Then there's the making fun of women. If women are overweight or unattractive, I've heard of women hearing unflattering comments made about their bodies.

Women live a life that men do not know and cannot relate to. I should do a post about that one day. The things that have been said to me, done to me, by men who were total strangers. They are things that men will never encounter in their entire lives.

Yes, Virginia. There is a difference between the sexes. And it's legal to make the distinction in some circumstances. But even if it weren't for a govt institution, it is for a private club. Even if the club said "whites only."

exercising around men.

i personally don't feel comfortable exercising around men. but i recognize that as my *own* lookout. Businesses aren't obliged, and the state isn't obliged to support discriminatory women's only facilities to cater to my personal discomforts.

and i recognize this --

"Women live a life that men do not know and cannot relate to"

-- as pernicious crap.

*Everyone* in some respect lives a life that others don't know and can't relate to. And simultaneously lives a life that others do know and can relate to.

Maybe we should all have our private gyms.

Pseudoreligious mystifying bullshit. Yet you correct the poster because s/he said 'ladies'.

You want it all ways. You want 'equality' and simultaneously you want special allowances for your unique emotional/social sensibilities.

HiPoint is right. You, once again, are wrong.

She simply spouts a bunch of double standard BS.

sometimes.

You may disagree with the way some women feel about it. But that doesn't take away the fact that they DO feel that way about it, and gyms are willing to provide special times, or entire special gyms. And they have a LEGAL right to do so.

I understand you're embarrassed for not knowing this. I've belonged to gyms most of my life, and I pay attention, so maybe I've just been made aware of this problem, whereas you haven't noticed it.

When an obese woman goes to exercise at a gym, I've actually heard people say things like, "Ha...getta load of that ass. What's she DOING here?" (I'm thinking...that is exactly the kind of person who SHOULD be at the gym, and how wonderful she's working on her health issue.)

I'm older now, but as a younger woman who was a bit of a babe, I suppose, I can tell you I can't count the times I caught men staring at my crotch or my butt. I guess they forget there are mirrors everywhere, so we can see what's going on behind us. And forget about the wet area! That was an all-out lust fest in the pool or steam room. I could take it just fine, but that's my personality, and I did alter my exercises when men were around. (and don't ask me how I was dressed...I always dressed appropriately...I took my gym time seriously and wasn't there to pick up guys) I can see where a more modest woman, or an obese woman, would rather not have to deal with it.

You don't approve. That's fine, but it's none of your business that someone else is modest or doesn't want to be called "fatso."

"Because someone might look at me" is the same excuse homophobes in the military were offering in argument against having gays share the same living spaces with them.

having serious self esteem issues became an "excuse".

I told someone recently that I shower in the dark so I don't have to see my body. I don't look at myself in the mirror.

If I can't stand to see myself, why would I want someone else to see me, and why would I want to feel like a total piece of shit watching that person's expression of disgust or embarrassment at my flab?

That having been said, I don't think it's fair for someone to pay for time they can't have, so a reasonable solution might be to have separate areas for mixed gender exercising or women only exercising and let people choose.

because you wouldn't want to have it both ways, now would you?

The article says the gym is "owned by fitness company Better in association with Camden Council" - if this is (in part) a publicly-owned facility I would agree that there is a problem with differential access based on sex. And fixing the problem doesn't seem all that difficult: an equal amount of men-only time, or better a division of the equipment into different rooms, so that only a portion of the gym can be single-sex at any one time.

On the other hand, I can see a case that this is fair: women are treated differently by society in general, do experience public space (including gyms) differently than men, and thus have different needs for privacy - from that perspective, although this arrangement may be unfair in a time-accounting sense, maybe it's closer to being fair in an overall access-to-workout-space sense...

I'm not sure what "in association with" means in this context, though.

associated as part of their community efforts? "Better Health and Fitness" cards are their access cards for all the leisure centres in Camden. Kentish Town is one of those.

http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure/sport-and-physical-activity/better-health-and-fitness-card/

Nothing says "we check our work" like a poorly designed website!

Which assumes he is right. Hence it is not really much of an argument, since he assumes his own conclusion.

One wonders what he thinks about communal toilets.

are nowhere near as nice as the major chains like LA Fitness. Sometimes I do feel self-conscious because sometimes the men in the room will stare, or try to flirt, or even offer their expertise when they think you're confused about how to use certain machines (which sometimes I am, but it's still kind of embarrassing). There's a time and place for everything. I think most women really want to workout when they go to the gym and are not looking to pick someone up.

These women need to get over it. If men judge their bodies negatively, it's on the stupid man (whose body usually does not pass muster to the degree they demand for women).

for denying what they see as their rightful access to sex.

There are all kinds of private men's clubs around the country, August, for example, and they are not required to integrate. Courts have routinely ruled that same-sex health clubs fall under rights of free association. There has to be some sort of compelling public interest to pierce a private right of free association.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/08/20/good-question-why-can-some-clubs-discriminate/

Oh, and for some reason, Lloyd doesn’t actually provide any details on which particular sexist times the Kentish Town Sports Centre’s intolerable policy is in effect. Simple math — dividing his 442 hours a year by 365 — suggests that penis-owners are shunned from the entire facility for about 1.2 hours a day, which does seem like rather a lot. Fortunately, Yr Wonkette has the journamalistic stones (ha-ha) to do an In-Depth Investigation by taking three minutes to visit Kentish Town Sports Centre’s website, where we discovered the shocking truth: Peter Lloyd is fucking around with numbers here.

In reality, the Fitness Centre is Women-Only “on Thursdays from 06:00pm to 07:30 pm.” That’s it. A single 90-minute period a week, or a more shocking 78 hours a year. Swim classes account for the only other large block of gender-segregated activity:
Wednesdays: From: 12:30 pm To 01:30 pm
From: 04:00 pm To 05:00 pm
Thursdays: From: 07:00 pm To 10:00 pm
Sundays: From: 04:00 pm To 05:00 pm

This still adds up to only 390 hours a year, so to get that 442 hours, Lloyd has to add in the one hour women-only yoga class on Thursdays, which doesn’t exactly shut down the entire facility. Still, it is all pretty goddamn discriminatory! There’s definitely a full hour and a half on Thursday evenings when a person with a penis is simply NOT WELCOME in either the pool or the fitness centre. Is this freedom? Is this fairness? Is this what George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Ghandhi and Jimi Hendrix gave their lives at Pearl Harbor to protect? WE THINK NOT.

Also, we would like to be reimbursed on our gym membership for all the times that we were not able to use the handball courts because we do not play handball. And don’t even get us started about those “zoomba” classes, which apparently have something to do with animals riding around on robot vacuum cleaners. We do not get that AT ALL.

Read more at http://wonkette.com/513321/human-rights-hero-sues-sexist-gym-because-of-ladies-only-yoga-classes#a5zFsVTA4v8vbg4H.99

I don't quite get why anyone would go to a gym to leer at women, personally. The thought of my next set is more than enough for me to focus on.

I'd be seriously pissed if my gym had a "Lunk alarm", though