NationStates

This is a fantastic idea.

However, it clearly doesn't go far enough with ensuring true equality for women. As such, I humbly propose the following solutions for these pesky everyday, reasonable problems:

* Make women only entrances to the building, preferably in the rear side of the building out of sight to ensure maximum privacy.

* Install women only drinking fountains at chest height. This way, men can't possibly get a glimpse of a female bent over revealing herself through her ultra thin and tight yoga pants. Be sure to install a giant "WOMEN ONLY" sign above them, to ensure nobody gets them confused with the other ones.

* Women shall have segregated communal items normally provided to all by the facility, such as towels. This will be done to ensure that the one pervert that exists cannot possibly "sniff" a used towel. Said towels will be kept out of sight of the main areas for further protection.

* We should also pass a series of laws into effect, that even further these rights by legally separating them from society even further. We can call it something catchy, like "The Feminine Control Acts"... yes, that IS catchy indeed.

Mmmm........taste the Progress.

Kubra wrote:

Futrellia wrote:
I've been going to the gym for two+ years now. I've seen guys come in that bench 270lbs and i've also seen guys that can only bench 90lbs. I used to be one of them. This all stems from your own self-consciousness. When bigger guys watch you lift lower weights, you feel embarrassed, it's only natural. But if you really care about the improvement of your body, you won't give a shit. In the gym, you're supposed to be uncomfortable, your supposed to feel all eyes on you, but if your really committed to becoming a new you, it won't matter. If you stick with it, people can watch you all day as you progress and become a more fit, muscled and toned person.

If you can't handle that, then there's plenty of apps that help you plan diets and workouts from the comfort and safety of your own home, where nobody judges you.

Sure, but telling yourself "no ones looking" only works so well. I credit all gains made not to myself, but the chill uni staff who were willing to form check me without charging me.
You're supposed to be uncomfortable, yeah, but not socially, man. Discomfort should ideally stem from physical exertion.

Saying "but if you're really committed" as about the equivalent of tell the homeless to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, or American Military Advisors telling their afghani subordinates "You have to want it more than we do". It's pure rhetoric in the context of policy.

I did not say to tell yourself "no one's looking", i said to accept it and continue doing what your doing. Life is socially uncomfortable, in everything we do, besides when we are with family, friends, or by ourselves.

And first not, i'm not telling a homeless person to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I'm not telling afghani subordinates anything. I'm saying that if you want to become physically fit, you have to want it for the good of yourself, not just by what society tells you.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:This is a fantastic idea.

However, it clearly doesn't go far enough with ensuring true equality for women. As such, I humbly propose the following solutions for these pesky everyday, reasonable problems:

* Make women only entrances to the building, preferably in the rear side of the building out of sight to ensure maximum privacy.

* Install women only drinking fountains at chest height. This way, men can't possibly get a glimpse of a female bent over revealing herself through her ultra thin and tight yoga pants. Be sure to install a giant "WOMEN ONLY" sign above them, to ensure nobody gets them confused with the other ones.

* Women shall have segregated communal items normally provided to all by the facility, such as towels. This will be done to ensure that the one pervert that exists cannot possibly "sniff" a used towel. Said towels will be kept out of sight of the main areas for further protection.

* We should also pass a series of laws into effect, that even further these rights by legally separating them from society even further. We can call it something catchy, like "The Feminine Control Acts"... yes, that IS catchy indeed.

Mmmm........taste the Progress.

Right here.
Ooh, we should make them sit in different parts of the bus too! to avoid being stared at!

Camaalbakrius wrote:

Kubra wrote: Flamebait? It seemed a rather straightforward question that could easily be answered in a straightforward matter. In what way have I misunderstood?

The reason that it is alright for Milo to have those points of view is because they are opinions. It is not ok in my opinion to have women's only hours because it is sexist in action

There are currently no gyms mentioned that do women-only hours, and no gyms that I know of that exclude the overweight. So what makes one discrimination in action and the other not?

Camaalbakrius wrote:

Kubra wrote: Trolling? Is that what it is? What Milo does? I had assumed that his methods were to ellicit a response where one would otherwise not be received. After all, he most certainly does have that effect, does it not? It has been through such methods that I have been able to confirm that you want the overweight excluded from gyms.
So, if you want to talk hypocrisy, let's talk this position in relation to the position you've taken regarding women-only hours. Is there not some degree of contradiction between these two views you hold?

First of all, he calls himself a Troll. Second of all, I don't want overweight people excluded from gyms. He never meant that. Why do you think I said you were putty in his hands? He was trolling you. He says those things because he knows feminists hate that, and he wants to illicit responses from you, not because he actually believes it. That's trolling. And he seems to have done a pretty good job. He's a professional provocateur, and it is ok in real life, but in NS we have rules. Many people would call what Milo does falmebaiting.

But you said Milo was right, in the context of his views about gym policy. That policy is overweight exclusion. Given there is articles of him stating such, for your viewing pleasure
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/2 ... tely-hate/
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/0 ... d-science/
An interview, too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdOOTKYvP0
and this particular tweet

We have therefore no reason to suppose this is not a position he seriously holds. Perhaps my fault is now engaging in discussion, instead of escalating provocation? Would I therefore have done better in my emulation?

Duradeiro wrote:A public university shouldn't be excluding specific genders from gyms - or any other rec center for that matter. Students are paying to use these facilities, so how is it fair to exclude them because somebody might feel 'intimidated' by their presence? If somebody is so bothered by this issue, they should find a private gym that either follows this policy or is completely female-only.

can it exclude for other reasons

Futrellia wrote:

Kubra wrote: Sure, but telling yourself "no ones looking" only works so well. I credit all gains made not to myself, but the chill uni staff who were willing to form check me without charging me.
You're supposed to be uncomfortable, yeah, but not socially, man. Discomfort should ideally stem from physical exertion.

Saying "but if you're really committed" as about the equivalent of tell the homeless to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, or American Military Advisors telling their afghani subordinates "You have to want it more than we do". It's pure rhetoric in the context of policy.

I did not say to tell yourself "no one's looking", i said to accept it and continue doing what your doing. Life is socially uncomfortable, in everything we do, besides when we are with family, friends, or by ourselves.

And first not, i'm not telling a homeless person to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I'm not telling afghani subordinates anything. I'm saying that if you want to become physically fit, you have to want it for the good of yourself, not just by what society tells you.

Sure, but folks are generally more productive when they're not socially uncomfortable, in the gym or otherwise.

They're uh, they're analogies. They're similar situations.

I honestly have absolutely no problem with this.

Government mandates for it-heck no-but having a women's-only hour, and/or a men's-only hour seems a perfectly fine decision to me. Some women may prefer to exercise with other women only, and perhaps vice-versa for men.

If it turns out to be economically viable, and I can certainly see it being so, then let the gyms go for it.

Camaalbakrius wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:This is a fantastic idea.

However, it clearly doesn't go far enough with ensuring true equality for women. As such, I humbly propose the following solutions for these pesky everyday, reasonable problems:

* Make women only entrances to the building, preferably in the rear side of the building out of sight to ensure maximum privacy.

* Install women only drinking fountains at chest height. This way, men can't possibly get a glimpse of a female bent over revealing herself through her ultra thin and tight yoga pants. Be sure to install a giant "WOMEN ONLY" sign above them, to ensure nobody gets them confused with the other ones.

* Women shall have segregated communal items normally provided to all by the facility, such as towels. This will be done to ensure that the one pervert that exists cannot possibly "sniff" a used towel. Said towels will be kept out of sight of the main areas for further protection.

* We should also pass a series of laws into effect, that even further these rights by legally separating them from society even further. We can call it something catchy, like "The Feminine Control Acts"... yes, that IS catchy indeed.

Mmmm........taste the Progress.

Right here.
Ooh, we should make them sit in different parts of the bus too! to avoid being stared at!

Preferably the rear of the bus, through the door conveniently located at said position. This way they don't have to suffer through the man gazing that is sure to happens should they be forced to suffer through the atrocity that is normal procedure for getting on and off the vehicle.

Kubra wrote:

Futrellia wrote:

I did not say to tell yourself "no one's looking", i said to accept it and continue doing what your doing. Life is socially uncomfortable, in everything we do, besides when we are with family, friends, or by ourselves.

And first not, i'm not telling a homeless person to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I'm not telling afghani subordinates anything. I'm saying that if you want to become physically fit, you have to want it for the good of yourself, not just by what society tells you.

Sure, but folks are generally more productive when they're not socially uncomfortable, in the gym or otherwise.

They're uh, they're analogies. They're similar situations.

Your using analogies to describe something that is impossible to do. Being motivated at the gym is not impossible to do.

Xelsis wrote:I honestly have absolutely no problem with this.

Government mandates for it-heck no-but having a women's-only hour, and/or a men's-only hour seems a perfectly fine decision to me. Some women may prefer to exercise with other women only, and perhaps vice-versa for men.

If it turns out to be economically viable, and I can certainly see it being so, then let the gyms go for it.

mens only classes are actually a good idea for spin classes and yoga, where men are usually discouraged from participating. I mean, I wouldn't use em, I've got a real bike and yoga is ehhhhhh but y'know more power to guys going in em.

Futrellia wrote:

Kubra wrote: Sure, but folks are generally more productive when they're not socially uncomfortable, in the gym or otherwise.

They're uh, they're analogies. They're similar situations.

Your using analogies to describe something that is impossible to do. Being motivated at the gym is not impossible to do.

Pulling oneself up by the bootstraps originally was a jib on the impossibility, but common usage generally denotes possibility. As for he afghans, I see no reason they could not theoretically organize themselves semi-competently.

Chessmistress wrote:

Galloism wrote:



I seriously doubt the logical feeling is "what if my gym can be discriminatory".

Then how do you explain the relative abundance (even if it's not enough) of women-only events at various universities? Do you really think they they're trying to be discriminatory? Or it's just that they need a place free from the male gaze?

Wartaria wrote:Usually, women AND men alike feel nervous at the gym because it's their first few times there, and because they feel ridiculously out-of-shape compared to the rest of the people.

The problem of men staring at you doesn't happen just only during the first few times...

Given that I am both a man and go to the gym on a daily basis, I'll just slide on over here and take part in this debate.

When it comes to staring, it's always going to be inevitable. There's the first couple of weeks where the staring is the worst. But, this is mostly because the members at various gyms tend to be more of a social group, so, when someone new arrives, there is an awkward phase that people must pass through before you're just another regular.

Now, after that, the staring is either non-existent or just done by a couple perverts here and there. This doesn't mean that it's that big a problem, though... All you have to do is talk to them about it, and if they refuse to stop, well, there are several other courses of action that you could take. You can go to another area, report them for sexual harassment, or just reschedule the times that you arrive at or leave the gym.

Now for a slight change...

While I do believe in equality and respect for women, I can just never find myself taking feminism very seriously. This is primarily because most of the issues brought forth by these social justice warriors aren't worth the attention... Most of what I see online now is complaint after complaint about people doubting rape claims, the portrayal of women on digital media, and the pathetic claim that women make $.70 to every $1 a male makes.

To start with the first one... For Americans, the first response to any claim is skepticism, and there is a good reason for this. If we were to accept every claim made as a truth, then that would mean that the concept our courts are based around would be "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," rather than our "Innocent Until Proven Guilty Model." And to anyone who believes that guilt should be presumed as the first response, think about how you would feel if someone were to make the claim that you had physically assaulted them. If you had no evidence to prove your innocence, you would stand little chance against them, even if they had minimal falsified evidence to prove your guilt.

As for the portrayal of women in digital media, I find more complaints about popular gaming titles, or even ads on the television. Yet, I hear little chatter about the way many women themselves act today. It's hard to have a high level of respect for women when people like Nicki Minaj and Ariana Grande influencing the young and causing them to preform and support some excessively sexualized dance moves... It's people like them that women should be fighting if they want to be treated with the respect that they deserve, not the commercial for the local beach bar.

Lastly, we come to the issue of unequal pay... First off, I would like to make it clear that the method used to come up with numbers like that is highly inaccurate, because it doesn't account for the gender ratio or the greater number of men in higher positions under the various companies they are employed. While this is still an issue in the world, it is nowhere near as extreme as it is made out to be.

Sky-TheLandOfNekos wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
Then how do you explain the relative abundance (even if it's not enough) of women-only events at various universities? Do you really think they they're trying to be discriminatory? Or it's just that they need a place free from the male gaze?



The problem of men staring at you doesn't happen just only during the first few times...

Given that I am both a man and go to the gym on a daily basis, I'll just slide on over here and take part in this debate.

When it comes to staring, it's always going to be inevitable. There's the first couple of weeks where the staring is the worst. But, this is mostly because the members at various gyms tend to be more of a social group, so, when someone new arrives, there is an awkward phase that people must pass through before you're just another regular.

Now, after that, the staring is either non-existent or just done by a couple perverts here and there. This doesn't mean that it's that big a problem, though... All you have to do is talk to them about it, and if they refuse to stop, well, there are several other courses of action that you could take. You can go to another area, report them for sexual harassment, or just reschedule the times that you arrive at or leave the gym.

Now for a slight change...

While I do believe in equality and respect for women, I can just never find myself taking feminism very seriously. This is primarily because most of the issues brought forth by these social justice warriors aren't worth the attention... Most of what I see online now is complaint after complaint about people doubting rape claims, the portrayal of women on digital media, and the pathetic claim that women make $.70 to every $1 a male makes.

To start with the first one... For Americans, the first response to any claim is skepticism, and there is a good reason for this. If we were to accept every claim made as a truth, then that would mean that the concept our courts are based around would be "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," rather than our "Innocent Until Proven Guilty Model." And to anyone who believes that guilt should be presumed as the first response, think about how you would feel if someone were to make the claim that you had physically assaulted them. If you had no evidence to prove your innocence, you would stand little chance against them, even if they had minimal falsified evidence to prove your guilt.

As for the portrayal of women in digital media, I find more complaints about popular gaming titles, or even ads on the television. Yet, I hear little chatter about the way many women themselves act today. It's hard to have a high level of respect for women when people like Nicki Minaj and Ariana Grande influencing the young and causing them to preform and support some excessively sexualized dance moves... It's people like them that women should be fighting if they want to be treated with the respect that they deserve, not the commercial for the local beach bar.

Lastly, we come to the issue of unequal pay... First off, I would like to make it clear that the method used to come up with numbers like that is highly inaccurate, because it doesn't account for the gender ratio or the greater number of men in higher positions under the various companies they are employed. While this is still an issue in the world, it is nowhere near as extreme as it is made out to be.

I know I'm not really in a position to criticize others for being off-topic, but only like the first couple paragraphs were actually about women and the gym. There's a general feminism thread for the rest, bruv.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:This is a fantastic idea.

However, it clearly doesn't go far enough with ensuring true equality for women. As such, I humbly propose the following solutions for these pesky everyday, reasonable problems:

* Make women only entrances to the building, preferably in the rear side of the building out of sight to ensure maximum privacy.

* Install women only drinking fountains at chest height. This way, men can't possibly get a glimpse of a female bent over revealing herself through her ultra thin and tight yoga pants. Be sure to install a giant "WOMEN ONLY" sign above them, to ensure nobody gets them confused with the other ones.

* Women shall have segregated communal items normally provided to all by the facility, such as towels. This will be done to ensure that the one pervert that exists cannot possibly "sniff" a used towel. Said towels will be kept out of sight of the main areas for further protection.

* We should also pass a series of laws into effect, that even further these rights by legally separating them from society even further. We can call it something catchy, like "The Feminine Control Acts"... yes, that IS catchy indeed.

Mmmm........taste the Progress.

While I agree with your belief that feminism is more of a joke, the sarcasm isn't appreciated.

Kubra wrote:

Camaalbakrius wrote:The reason that it is alright for Milo to have those points of view is because they are opinions. It is not ok in my opinion to have women's only hours because it is sexist in action

There are currently no gyms mentioned that do women-only hours, and no gyms that I know of that exclude the overweight. So what makes one discrimination in action and the other not?

Camaalbakrius wrote:First of all, he calls himself a Troll. Second of all, I don't want overweight people excluded from gyms. He never meant that. Why do you think I said you were putty in his hands? He was trolling you. He says those things because he knows feminists hate that, and he wants to illicit responses from you, not because he actually believes it. That's trolling. And he seems to have done a pretty good job. He's a professional provocateur, and it is ok in real life, but in NS we have rules. Many people would call what Milo does falmebaiting.

But you said Milo was right, in the context of his views about gym policy. That policy is overweight exclusion. Given there is articles of him stating such, for your viewing pleasure
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/2 ... tely-hate/
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/0 ... d-science/
An interview, too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdOOTKYvP0
and this particular tweet

We have therefore no reason to suppose this is not a position he seriously holds. Perhaps my fault is now engaging in discussion, instead of escalating provocation? Would I therefore have done better in my emulation?

Alright, I think this has gone far enough. This entire argument about Milo is literally leading nowhere and it is not relevant to the question at hand at all.

So I'm going to give you my view on the actual question:
I think the entire idea is blatantly sexist because it is segregating women from society. If we were to implement these as standard policy, then it would be sexist because it would be preventing men from entering the gym at certain hours of the day. What if that hour is the only time that a man can work out? I find the whole idea behind the argument about women being afraid of being intimidated is absolute nonsense and complete malarkey. I would be ok with allowing women to reserve certain places of the gym at certain times, but not completely cut off all men from exercising for an hour or so. The gym should be a public place. It should be open to everyone, just a simple it is now. The way gyms are currently, there is no segregation. Anyone is allowed in. But what this is doing is creating segregation within the gym that did not exist before

Kubra wrote:

Sky-TheLandOfNekos wrote:Given that I am both a man and go to the gym on a daily basis, I'll just slide on over here and take part in this debate.

When it comes to staring, it's always going to be inevitable. There's the first couple of weeks where the staring is the worst. But, this is mostly because the members at various gyms tend to be more of a social group, so, when someone new arrives, there is an awkward phase that people must pass through before you're just another regular.

Now, after that, the staring is either non-existent or just done by a couple perverts here and there. This doesn't mean that it's that big a problem, though... All you have to do is talk to them about it, and if they refuse to stop, well, there are several other courses of action that you could take. You can go to another area, report them for sexual harassment, or just reschedule the times that you arrive at or leave the gym.

Now for a slight change...

While I do believe in equality and respect for women, I can just never find myself taking feminism very seriously. This is primarily because most of the issues brought forth by these social justice warriors aren't worth the attention... Most of what I see online now is complaint after complaint about people doubting rape claims, the portrayal of women on digital media, and the pathetic claim that women make $.70 to every $1 a male makes.

To start with the first one... For Americans, the first response to any claim is skepticism, and there is a good reason for this. If we were to accept every claim made as a truth, then that would mean that the concept our courts are based around would be "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," rather than our "Innocent Until Proven Guilty Model." And to anyone who believes that guilt should be presumed as the first response, think about how you would feel if someone were to make the claim that you had physically assaulted them. If you had no evidence to prove your innocence, you would stand little chance against them, even if they had minimal falsified evidence to prove your guilt.

As for the portrayal of women in digital media, I find more complaints about popular gaming titles, or even ads on the television. Yet, I hear little chatter about the way many women themselves act today. It's hard to have a high level of respect for women when people like Nicki Minaj and Ariana Grande influencing the young and causing them to preform and support some excessively sexualized dance moves... It's people like them that women should be fighting if they want to be treated with the respect that they deserve, not the commercial for the local beach bar.

Lastly, we come to the issue of unequal pay... First off, I would like to make it clear that the method used to come up with numbers like that is highly inaccurate, because it doesn't account for the gender ratio or the greater number of men in higher positions under the various companies they are employed. While this is still an issue in the world, it is nowhere near as extreme as it is made out to be.

I know I'm not really in a position to criticize others for being off-topic, but only like the first couple paragraphs were actually about women and the gym. There's a general feminism thread for the rest, bruv.

I just felt like ranting. So, I stated "Now for a slight change..." before I went off the topic.

Sky-TheLandOfNekos wrote:

Kubra wrote: I know I'm not really in a position to criticize others for being off-topic, but only like the first couple paragraphs were actually about women and the gym. There's a general feminism thread for the rest, bruv.

I just felt like ranting. So, I stated "Now for a slight change..." before I went off the topic.

Sky. Leave before it is too late!

Camaalbakrius wrote:

Sky-TheLandOfNekos wrote:I just felt like ranting. So, I stated "Now for a slight change..." before I went off the topic.

Sky. Leave before it is too late!

I probably should.

I think I've had enough for a while. Im going to giveback up on this thread since it doesn't seem worth my time anymore. I do love having conversation with everyone though. I love hearing different points of view. Whether they agree with me or not. At the end of the day we can respect each other's opinions and move on with our lives. Thank you for entertaining me, and I sincerely wish you all the best.

Camaalbakrius wrote:I think I've had enough for a while. Im going to giveback up on this thread since it doesn't seem worth my time anymore. I do love having conversation with everyone though. I love hearing different points of view. Whether they agree with me or not. At the end of the day we can respect each other's opinions and move on with our lives. Thank you for entertaining me, and I sincerely wish you all the best.

Don't take this as trolling or anything, I don't mean to provoke anyone

Camaalbakrius wrote:

Kubra wrote: There are currently no gyms mentioned that do women-only hours, and no gyms that I know of that exclude the overweight. So what makes one discrimination in action and the other not?

But you said Milo was right, in the context of his views about gym policy. That policy is overweight exclusion. Given there is articles of him stating such, for your viewing pleasure
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/2 ... tely-hate/
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/0 ... d-science/
An interview, too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdOOTKYvP0
and this particular tweet

We have therefore no reason to suppose this is not a position he seriously holds. Perhaps my fault is now engaging in discussion, instead of escalating provocation? Would I therefore have done better in my emulation?

Alright, I think this has gone far enough. This entire argument about Milo is literally leading nowhere and it is not relevant to the question at hand at all.

So I'm going to give you my view on the actual question:
I think the entire idea is blatantly sexist because it is segregating women from society. If we were to implement these as standard policy, then it would be sexist because it would be preventing men from entering the gym at certain hours of the day. What if that hour is the only time that a man can work out? I find the whole idea behind the argument about women being afraid of being intimidated is absolute nonsense and complete malarkey. I would be ok with allowing women to reserve certain places of the gym at certain times, but not completely cut off all men from exercising for an hour or so. The gym should be a public place. It should be open to everyone, just a simple it is now. The way gyms are currently, there is no segregation. Anyone is allowed in. But what this is doing is creating segregation within the gym that did not exist before

Sure it is. You early said it would renounce nothing, and you've already renounced your claim that Milo is right. All without me ever having to actually mention anything to do with renunciation. Clearly, his methods are useful.

If the policymaker believes that can satisfy more patrons than they can dissatisfy with a particular policy, there's no reason for them not to put it in the place. 5:30-6:30 might be a bit inconvenient, or really incovenient, probably really incovenient, but 8:00-9:00 is generally a slow time. If they can get enough women cool with the time, they'll only be putting off like a few guys to the benefit of a larger group. Sound business, innit?

As for segregation being in place, the context is uni gyms. You get to use the pleb gym, while chad rippetoe on the lifting team has his favourite barbells bearings oiled daily by the staff.
And while we're at it, let's talk pools, uni or otherwise. Should the same policies be enforced similarly?

Kubra wrote:

Camaalbakrius wrote:Alright, I think this has gone far enough. This entire argument about Milo is literally leading nowhere and it is not relevant to the question at hand at all.

So I'm going to give you my view on the actual question:
I think the entire idea is blatantly sexist because it is segregating women from society. If we were to implement these as standard policy, then it would be sexist because it would be preventing men from entering the gym at certain hours of the day. What if that hour is the only time that a man can work out? I find the whole idea behind the argument about women being afraid of being intimidated is absolute nonsense and complete malarkey. I would be ok with allowing women to reserve certain places of the gym at certain times, but not completely cut off all men from exercising for an hour or so. The gym should be a public place. It should be open to everyone, just a simple it is now. The way gyms are currently, there is no segregation. Anyone is allowed in. But what this is doing is creating segregation within the gym that did not exist before

Sure it is. You early said it would renounce nothing, and you've already renounced your claim that Milo is right. All without me ever having to actually mention anything to do with renunciation. Clearly, his methods are useful.

If the policymaker believes that can satisfy more patrons than they can dissatisfy with a particular policy, there's no reason for them not to put it in the place. 5:30-6:30 might be a bit inconvenient, or really incovenient, probably really incovenient, but 8:00-9:00 is generally a slow time. If they can get enough women cool with the time, they'll only be putting off like a few guys to the benefit of a larger group. Sound business, innit?

As for segregation being in place, the context is uni gyms. You get to use the pleb gym, while chad rippetoe on the lifting team has his favourite barbells bearings oiled daily by the staff.
And while we're at it, let's talk pools, uni or otherwise. Should the same policies be enforced similarly?

Sorry, better luck next time though

oh god stop with the feminazi sjw threads chessmistress you're killing me

Chessmistress wrote:

Galloism wrote:



I seriously doubt the logical feeling is "what if my gym can be discriminatory".

Then how do you explain the relative abundance (even if it's not enough) of women-only events at various universities? Do you really think they they're trying to be discriminatory? Or it's just that they need a place free from the male gaze?

Wartaria wrote:Usually, women AND men alike feel nervous at the gym because it's their first few times there, and because they feel ridiculously out-of-shape compared to the rest of the people.

The problem of men staring at you doesn't happen just only during the first few times...

Neither does the problem of women staring at men.

Chessmistress wrote:

Galloism wrote:



I seriously doubt the logical feeling is "what if my gym can be discriminatory".

Then how do you explain the relative abundance (even if it's not enough) of women-only events at various universities? Do you really think they they're trying to be discriminatory? Or it's just that they need a place free from the male gaze?

It's female privilege, basically. Men-only events are broadly extinct due to some combination of court rulings and public backlash as sexist.

"No one gives a shit about men" is not an idle saying. It's broad to the point of being nearly universal.