Today's achievement | MensRights

Here's an example: guys try to hit on girls in the gym. They often do this under the guise of trying to help them, especially if the women are using free-weights. It's entirely possible that the women already know what they're doing. Cut out the guys, they don't get interrupted and have a more effective and enjoyable work out.

Now flip-it. Maybe there's a group of overweight guys trying to get in shape, and they don't want to do it in front of women due to the fear of embarrassing themselves. Maybe they're more comfortable just working out with their male buddies. Cut out the women and they have a more enjoyable experience.

Both situations I described can easily be found as fears/valid justifications new gym-goers have posted in /r/fitness.

[+]starbuxed -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]psycho_admin 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]starbuxed 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]btmims -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SwordfshII -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mariners77 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwordfshII -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mariners77 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwordfshII-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mariners772 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwordfshII 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]raptorrage 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SwordfshII0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_number_2 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HeyThereCharlie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]superangelo64 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]btmims -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FingerPaddle 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]whitey_sorkin -43 points-42 points-41 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]theromanianhare 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seicair 31 points32 points33 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dimitrisan 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KingN 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Why even segregate to begin with? It's not like there's a real reason for the segregation here. If you had a "whites only" class for the longest time, and then people broke down and decided to have a "blacks only" class, that still doesn't change the fact that there was, and still is, a lot of bigoted white people who don't want minorities in their class to begin with and who are having their hostile predispositions towards minorities catered to and publicly supported. Not to mention that it's really a bit of a backhanded gesture. It's like saying "we still don't want you in our class, but you're free to go have your own class over there by yourself if you want", instead just being inclusive, tolerant and/or fair-minded. Either way, it's still judging and segregating by gender when there really isn't a need to.

[–]maria340 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]ExpendableOne -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Again, no real justifications. People who feel self-conscious have no real reason to just feel self-conscious about bodies around just one gender. It's kind of hypocritical, really, since women would typically judge other women a lot harsher than men but, either way, there's no reason why a woman should just feel self-conscious about a man looking at her. Either she's self-conscious about everyone looking at her, in which case she should work out in private or learn to deal with basic social interactions, or she's only conscious about it when it's men looking at her and that feeling stems from sexism, stereotyping and heterophobia. No matter what, that argument wouldn't stand if it was a man feeling self-conscious about being seen by women, men being self-conscious about being judged by other men(gay or straight) or women being self-conscious about being judged by lesbian women.

Women getting hit on at the gym is not a justification for segregation. Again, same issues present themselves. Women also hit on men, harass men or give certain men unwanted attention, just like homosexual men/women do to other members of their respective genders, so why would it only be an issue when it's men showing attention to women? If women are okay with other women approaching them at the gym, but not okay with men, then how is that not heterophobia and misandry again? Social contact, and sexual interest, are a basic fact of life, being a woman isn't a justification for being disdainful, intolerant, hateful and segregating towards others. If someone went to the gym and felt "harassed" every time a black man or woman approached him, talked to him or looked at him, he would be considered a bigot. This is no different. Not to mention that, reguardless of any men who hit on women at the gym, the rest of the male population shouldn't be penalized for their actions, nor should the practice of segregation be encouraged because of it. If a certain woman feel harassed by specific individuals, there are means for her to report the harassment and have it handled(assuming it's even a legitimate case in the first place).

Religious beliefs also do not dictate the norm, and sexist beliefs in religions certainly shouldn't be used as a justification for sexist behaviors/beliefs in the real world. Some religions would dictate that women shouldn't be allowed to work out at all, or shouldn't only be allowed to work out around men. If people have religious beliefs that they need to follow, then they should either be working out at home or be looking for an establishment that follows their beliefs, not a gym that is supposed to be non-discriminative and serving the interests of the public. Realistically though, the religious argument is complete bullshit, because the reason why women get all the special treatment and special rooms in gyms has nothing to do with catering to any religion, and everything to do with anti-male sentiments and sexual vilifications. This is driven by a sentiment that is driven by favoritism for women and fear, disdain and/or hatred of men, and the greed that finds profit in catering to those sentiments; not the typical dismissal of women that most religions follow.

[–]AtheistConservative 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, you are insecure about your body. That's fine. I get it. But understand that you are signing up to join a gym. A public place that needs to be inclusive of everyone and treat everyone the same. Your insecurities do not justify discrimination, especially not when they are driven by something like gender. If a gay man willingly signed up to join a gym, but felt insecure working out around other men, do you really think that would be justification enough to bar other men from the gym at certain times because of it? If a guy started going to the gym because she was under the impression that black girls were into big dudes, do you think that would be a justification to discriminate against black women? No! It's ridiculous. It's one thing to be insecure about your body, it's another entirely to feel justified in discriminating because of those insecurities or penalizing certain individuals(who pay the same price you do), because of their gender. Whatever your reasons are, if you join a gym, there will be other people there. You have the choice to either get over it or not join the gym at all; just like any other business for that matter(hypothetical question, do you also boycott any other business or establishment that serves women? Because there's going to be women there and they are going to treat you the same there than they would at the gym).

That and the fact that it's not immediately obvious what someone's sexual orientation is, along with a few other factors, is why your gay argument is useless here

How is realizing if someone is gay or not in any way, shape or form relevant. Gay people do exist. That is a fact of life. You have to at least acknowledge their existence and the possibility that there's probably at least one gay person at any given gym. And, even if you were to assume that there are no gay men at your gym(though, straight men will probably judge you for your appearance just as much), you have to at least acknowledge that they are out there and that their existence completely undermines the reasoning behind segregated gyms. Even then, dismissing their sexuality is still considerably better than the sexual vilification that men are expected to endure for the insecurities and entitlements of women. Sentiments that are still entirely based on ignorance, sexism and irrational fear/disdain(otherwise, things would simply be different).

[–]maria340 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry you feel attacked as a gender group, I don't know your personal circumstances, but I wish I could change that. Nobody should feel vilified for their identity.

there's no reason why a woman should just feel self-conscious about a man looking at her

You're trying to rationalize feelings of insecurity here. Look, I get it, you don't see other people's perspective on this one. That's fine, you don't need to understand, but maybe you can respect a little. Insecurity isn't a rational feeling, and yet, it's an exceedingly common one. Especially for people who are just starting out and/or may not be in the physical shape they'd want to be in. If separating the sexes helps those people, then why not do it? I think it's great to have some men's only and some women's only classes. It's much easier for people who don't like those courses to go exercise anywhere else, whereas for people who DO like the segregated courses, that's their only opportunity to take advantage of the space and equipment in an environment they are comfortable with.

Keep in mind that we also have separate women's and men's restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms, and we separate athletics by sex. You can argue against any one of those practices, but the fact is that in our society, being around people who are of the same sex as you are can be more comfortable than not in certain situations.

By the way, you're the one who's making this about women being uncomfortable with men, when my original comment did not specify sex in any way. If you don't think it goes both ways, then you are just as one-sided and irrational as those who think only women should get certain benefits/special treatment.

Women also hit on men, harass men or give certain men unwanted attention, just like homosexual men/women do to other members of their respective genders, so why would it only be an issue when it's men showing attention to women? If women are okay with other women approaching them at the gym, but not okay with men, then how is that not heterophobia and misandry again?

Once again, I'm not specifying sex. You're right, and that's why there should be one men-only event for every women-only event that an institution decides to have. As for gay-lesbian issues, those are totally valid, and I see your point. However, the people who identify as those things are in the minority, so maybe for them it might work to deal on a case-by-case basis. In general, however, we live in a majority heterosexual society, so men's only and women's only courses serve that majority. If there is enough demand in a certain community to have courses segregated by sexual orientation, then I would certainly support that.

If people have religious beliefs that they need to follow, then they should either be working out at home or be looking for an establishment that follows their beliefs, not a gym that is supposed to be non-discriminative and serving the interests of the public.

Accommodating religious practices is part of serving the public. Just like if you have a large local LGBTQ community you could have separate courses based on orientation, if you have a large local religious community, doing something as simple as offering segregated courses for men and women can be a big help. You don't need to agree with other people's religious practices, but I'm not sure why it's so harmful to allow them to take advantage of a gender segregated course. Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do, but for some people, gender segregated classes are the only opportunity they have to exercise at a gym.

the religious argument is complete bullshit, because the reason why women get all the special treatment and special rooms in gyms has nothing to do with catering to any religion

It depends on the area. Maybe in Jackson, Mississippi, there's no real need to segregate based on gender. But in Dearborn, MI and in Borough Park, Brooklyn, you'd better have gender segregated courses at your gym, or you simply won't have enough customers to run your business.

If you have a gym that you feel is giving more time or benefits to one gender over the other, then go ahead and bring that up with them. But I'm not sure why you'd get angry at gender segregated courses offered at athletic centers when they give equal time to each. Once again, for the people that need it, it can be their only chance to exercise with gym amenities. For those who have no need, they're free to take part or not take part in the gender segregated classes, or they can go exercise in public since they don't mind.

[+]EdgarAllenNope -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yumstix22 points 12 years ago [recovered] (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]goblomi 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Degraine -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]goblomi6 points 12 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]btmims -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Degraine -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]goblomi 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Degraine 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]btmims 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ExpendableOne -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

If men and women want to exercise without the opposite sex present, that's fine.

Based on what? How is that fine? What is the justifiable reasoning behind "I don't want to exercise around men"? How is that any less offensive, negative or hateful than "I don't want to exercise around niggers" or "I don't want to work out around mexicans". If the justification is of a sexual nature, because most men are heterosexual, then how is that not heterophobia? If the justification is of a physiological nature, then how is that not sexism, or just prejudice against someone for the way they were born? If it's a combination of the both, how is that not misandry? The negative predisposition/sentiment is still the same and just as disdainful/hateful.

Do women not gawk at men just as much? Do gay men not gawk at other men just as much? Do gay women not gawk at other women just as much? Why is this strictly an issue when it's men showing some type of positive predisposition towards women? The vilification here isn't justified, nor is the disdain/hatred that is directed at men for their heterosexuality. Things like this really need to end, and catering to bigoted women and defending them in their prejudice really isn't right, productive or progressive.

The only time that gender should even come into play is when you have certain programs that are specifically designed for either the male and female physiology(not that there's really that much of a difference), but that still shouldn't be something that men or women should be excluded from simply because of their gender. They would still be entirely within their rights to want to learn about all the different programs, try different exercises, get better educated or aim for different goals.

[–]Bartab 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you seriously going to deny that there is a generally different set of interactions between men and women, and inter racial interactions?

What sort of fantasy world do you live in? Do you not understand the concepts of heterosexual flirting, male bonding, or how conversations are just generally different in mixed company?

disdain are still the same feelings whether they are driven by race or by gender.

It's not out of disdain. Jesus, get off the internet and socialize every so often. Guess what, we live in a culture where men primarily have to make the first move. That means men who want to date have to ask women out. Thus women get asked out. Many women only want to be approached in certain venues, and the gym is not commonly one of them. Likewise, most people care to some degree how they look to the opposite gender. The gym is ironically where we look our worst so that we can look better in the future.

[–]ExpendableOne0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not out of disdain. Jesus, get off the internet and socialize every so often.

How is it not out of a social disdain for male heterosexuality? Because you say so? You're going to have to do a lot better than that. Look around and make an effort to understand the world around you. The fact that we have gotten used to these double-standards, sexism and anti-male heterophobia from women as a society doesn't mean that we should just continue to accept it now that we know better.

Many women only want to be approached in certain venues, and the gym is not commonly one of them. Likewise, most people care to some degree how they look to the opposite gender.

Kind of a contradiction there.. if someone didn't want to get asked out at the gym, then why would they care about not looking their best at the gym? Either way, that's completely besides the point. Yes, men are still in large expected by women to make the first move, if not even most of the moves, but that doesn't justify the discrimination or the segregation. Not every man abides by those social expectations, nor does every woman. Even if they did, however, that would still simply leave us in a position where women simply have to learn to deal with male attention in a positive and healthy manner. Not by barring them access or shaming them for their sexuality or the social pressures that they are forced to endure.

Either way, that still doesn't change the fact that men can and do still follow the rules and respect women's personal space at the gym, and that treating all men like animals who can't control themselves is incredibly offensive and sexist. It doesn't change the fact that women are still at the gym meeting/talking to other women(if they are okay with meeting, talking or interacting to women, then they should be okay with meeting, talking or interacting with men; otherwise that is clearly sexism). It doesn't change the fact that the insecurities of a few women should not get to dictate the norm for everyone(especially when we already, as a society, ignore the insecurities of men).

Not to mention that, whether or not a woman looks her worse at the gym, is completely irrelevant and entirely subjective. Men and women are everyone, crossing each other's paths in every type of establishment and businesses; with every woman not looking her best as some point or another. Following the same logic here would dictate that we need a women's only section for every single business. Women at the gym look fine, reguardless of whatever insecurities they may have. Even if the segregation mentality was purely about insecurity(it's not, it's maybe 30% insecurity, 70% heterophobia), women should learn to be okay with themselves. The fact that they are not wearing makeup or push up bras means that they are at their most natural state, and they should they should learn to be okay with that first and foremost instead of penalizing men or supporting other forms of bigotry because it happens to be convenient for them.

[–]Bartab 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gremlina -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]selfsufficientnigga 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electroverted 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tone_ 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]modernbenoni 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bam2_89 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kennai 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]raptorrage 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mellymelz89 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Viking83 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GodOfAThousandForms 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gothiks 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryukyukids 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeteyMax 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlchemyPhoenix 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ispq 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]starbuxed 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejour -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I did say I supported it, so I don't want to argue the point too strongly. And secondly, I realize I don't speak for everyone.

But due to room and instructor availability, it isn't possible to have an unlimited number of co-ed, men's, women's classes. If you increase the number of single sex classes, that usually means a decline in the number of co-ed classes.

My ranked preference is 1) mixed class, 2) men's only class, 3) women's only class - since I can't participate. So my ideal is everything is co-ed. For every class that becomes single sex, it decreases my utility - a little in the case of men's only and a lot in case of women's only.

If most men think like me, then most men are actually worse off for every single sex class offered. A lot for women's only and a little for men's only.

In some ways this is the opposite of that story about phonics versus whole language teaching. The idea there was that gender differences in reading ability were minimal with whole language teaching. But phonics is actually a more effective teaching tool. Girls did a little worse with whole language, and boys did a lot worse with whole language. Switching to whole language was more fair, but everyone was better off with phonics.

Assuming that most men think like me, replacing a co-ed class with a men's only class makes things more fair, but most men and all women are worse off.

Of course, my favored way to maximize fairness and overall utility is to make every class mixed gender.

[–]FG_SF-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]SpliceVW -31 points-30 points-29 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hansolo2843 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WisLonghair 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Today's achievement
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	767
Comments	136
Date	November 22, 2013 11:55 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1r7nkv/todays_achievement/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/todays-achievement.1158103 https://theredarchive.com/post/1158103

Comments