Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

Peter Lloyd of the UK's Daily Mail recently wrote a rather inflammatory article titled, "Why I'm suing my gym over their sexist women-only hours".  He argues that providing women's only hours is a gender bias that is unfair AND "pathologises masculinity while simultaneously repressing it."  At his particular gym he claims that men and boys lose out on 442 hours of gym time every year to women.  Lloyd feels that paying the same amount as women but receiving 442 less hours every year is unjust and he credits this allowable sexism to exist because "we live in an age of acceptable misandry".  He formally complained to his gym and proposed three possible solutions:
1.) maintain women's only hours but introduce a men's only hour as well
2.) keep women's only hours but charge men less per year
3.) eliminate women's only hours and make the gym co-ed 24/7

Photo from Marie Claire.He goes on to argue that eliminating men from the gym because of women's feelings (whether they be intimidation, sexualization or something else)

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.

Okay so are Lloyd's three proposed solutions ridiculous? No, certainly not. They are however, misguided.  Let's go through his solutions in turn.

1.) Introduce a men's only hour as well: This solution implies that women are being favoured over men when in fact the introduction of women's only hours is an attempt at gender equity.  It is, for all intents and purposes, an affirmative action program for women to equalize the playing field.  It is not meant to be a solution to gender equality - it is a step towards gender equality.  It is a dangerous assumption when men and/or women believe that gender equity initiatives are no longer necessary.  We may think that gender equality is only a fight left for women in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and China etc. but this Tumblr link called 100% Men shows just how pervasive the 'old boys club' continues to be in places as 'progressive' as North America and England.  Women and girls, although numbers have improved significantly in the past few decades, are still not as inclined to be physically active as boys and men.  Hopefully, within a generation or two the divide will disappear but for the time being women's only hours are necessary to help introduce women into the gym environment.  The gym, after all, is a male domain.  Historically, the Greeks designed the gymnasium as a space for the intellectual and physical development of young men.  The word 'gymnasium' translates to mean 'place to be naked' because men and boys would exercise naked, hence the no girls allowed policy.  So to introduce a men's only hour in the gym is redundant because the gym was designed to be a men's only facility. A men's only hour in gyms is like instituting a white's only hour at golf courses. The fact that women's only hours exist is a sign of our progress as a society, not of gender backlash.

2.) Charge men less per year: Lloyd refers to those 442 hours lost as if they are actually hours he would have spent in the gym.  Maybe that women's hour was the only hour that he could go to the gym but I doubt it. When you join a facility you are bound to their hours of programming.  If I join a tennis club and they book off court times for lessons and league matches then those are times that I cannot use the courts.  Should I be charged less because I am not taking part in the lessons and leagues?  It would be nice but this isn't how things work.  Lloyd argues that its a bad business model to charge men for times that they aren't going to use the gym but to deduct fees based on times that you, the individual, won't or can't use the facility would be a book keeper's nightmare.  In many gyms they have studios and those studios are used for classes throughout the day, should I also be charged less because those classes mean I don't have access to the studio?

3.) Eliminate both men's and women's only hours:  Yes, this seems like the most fair solution but as I touched on before the gym has to go to extra lengths to welcome women into the gym.  The gym is an intimidating place for most people and particularly women.  The women who are willing to mingle with the men using the squat racks, benches, and plyometric toys are the women aren't the women we need to accomodate.  Women's only hours are designed to create a space that welcomes new women to learn how to exercise in an environment free of protein-shake drinking, power-lifting guys.  It also enables women who observe certain religious beliefs to be physically active.  Now, this is the intent behind women's only hours but this is not to say that this is what happens.

From my experience, women's only hours are not well utilized and fail to reach the population that really needs it.  It seems to serve women who are already confident at exercising and are used to working out in co-ed spaces.  I have yet to see women with traditional religious beliefs flood into the gym at the start of women's only hour. As a similar example, my university used to have a women's only ice time for women's hockey. This was right before the co-ed hockey time slot. I would go every week and almost every week I was the only woman on the ice.  Great practice time for me but a sorry statement for women's hockey in general.  I would then stay for the co-ed time slot and play with the guys.  Lots of hockey for me but I am not the type of woman who needs a woman's only hour, yet I am the one who benefits from it.  The intent behind women's only hours is well intentioned but athletic facilities must do more than just 'have it' if they really want to increase the number of women being physically active.

Furthermore, I agree with Lloyd's statement that too often are men assumed to all be the same.  When we introduce women's only hours to cater to specific female clientele we forget about the men who are insecure about their bodies, are intimidated by the racer-back wearing, Lululemon girls on the elliptical machines, and have never been shown how to exercise properly.  These are the men that, unfortunately, get lumped together with the jocks and the power lifters.  Maybe a more appropriate hour would be beginners hour but how on earth you would govern that, I don't know.

Lloyd believes that if he wins his case gyms all over England "could be forced to update their policies".  This won't happen.  Lloyd won't win. I am basing my opinion on the United Nations report that is titled No Country Treats Its Women...The Same As Its Men.  I am basing my logic on the fact that a five year girl was just raped by a twenty year old man in India, which further bolsters women's fear of men whether rightly or wrongly so.  I am basing my opinion on the millions of young girls sold into prostitution every year.  I am basing my opinion on the fact that women's sport has no cultural value when compared to men's sport.  The fact that we are even arguing about gym time seems rather inconsequential but the gym merely represents one more arena where men have, historically, been entitled over women. There are plenty of complaints that Lloyd should have about masculinity and gender relations but crying misandry in the gym shouldn't be one of them.

Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

• SportsPLUS
• OpEd

View Original Post at cszto.blogspot.com

View Resident_Badass's Full Profile