Re: Abolish Anti-Discrimination Laws


Ben wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Ben wrote:
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > > (EDIT)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd be hard-pressed to think of a program that is only suitable for
> > > > > > > women.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Their
> > > > > > > > machines are also set up and callibrated for women's needs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How would they differ from men's, other than weights?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They do differ. The machines for pecs are not spaced so far apart and
> > > > > > the same for inner and outer thighs. Some of these machines are built
> > > > > > just for women, in fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > The machines at my club have the capacity to be adjusted like that.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but that means that those who use the machines often have to have
> > > > tools available to change them. With the machines designed for women,
> > > > no change is necessary.
> > >
> > > Um, most of the adjustments involve lifting a pin and moving a part
> > > over, no strength required. Even changing weights involves moving one
> > > little pin.
> >
> > Not at my gym. There, the rowing machine, as well as the recumbant
> > bikes are difficult to change and since there are more men at the gym,
> > they tend to be set for men.
>
> The rowing machine has a pin that is released, the seat adjusted, and
> then reset. The resistance is provided by fans or pulleys, and will
> provide as much of a workout as the person wants. Same for recumbent
> bikes. I can't even envision the type of equipment that is so
> difficult to adjust that it takes a man's strength, because, if it's
> not strength, what else could it be?

It doesn't take strength per se, but it's very inconvenient, and some
of the machines require a tool to change them. I don't use those. Too
much trouble. But in the gym I'm using now they have equipment set up
for both sexes. That works quite well.
>
> > > > And in most gyms, since more men use the gym
> > > > than women, the women would be obligated to changed them or use them as
> > > > adjusted for men.
> > >
> > > The only adjustments for men are spacing on the bar or pads or whatnot,
> > > and the amount of weight. These adjustments involve moving a pin.
> > > Would you keep 6'1" 250 lb women out of the clubs so they don't upset
> > > the machine settings?
> >
> > It's the law of averages, Ben. How many women would need to adjust for
> > 6'1''?
>
> In my gym (coed), the women run the gamut of ages and body sizes. But
> just for the hell of it, when I go there after work tomorrow, I'm going
> to ask about 'special' equipment just for women, or if there's
> equipment so complicated or difficult that it's an impediment for
> women.
>
I'm just suggesting that women might prefer going to a place where the
DON'T have to change the settings because there are more men that use
them. It's a matter of convenience. If you only have 40 min. to do a
workout and 15 to shower, you don't want to be bothered with equipment
changing.

> > You see, if more men come to the gym the equipment would tend
> > to be set up for them. In a woman's gym, that equipment would be set
> > for them. At curves, the equipment is set for the average woman's
> > height.
>
> This is really a non-issue, Hy. Everything on the machines, including
> seats, is adjustable. I have a BowFlex at home--my wife (who is a full
> foot shorter and fully half my weight) uses it just fine, as does my
> son, who strikes the midpoint between me and my wife in height and
> weight. Adjustments on any gym machines takes less than 30 seconds,
> and often half that time, once you know where you want that particular
> machine to be set.

But that doesn't apply to all machines, Ben. As I stated, in my old
gym the rowing machine and the UBE and a few others all had to be
changed manually, and one required a tool to change it. Also, if a man
is pressing 200 lbs. and leaves them on the machine, that would be an
impediment as well.

> > >
> > > > > There's really no difference between women and smaller men, as far as
> > > > > that goes. The older machines may suffer from an inability to be
> > > > > adjusted.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. But when you think about it, if a gym can create two areas,
> > > > the need for adjustment is gone.
> > >
> > > The "need" for adjustment is exaggerated.
> >
> > So you say, but I'm not buying your snake oil. :-)
>
> So?
>
> > If women want to work out in a place designed for their body type I have no particular
> > objection to that.
>
> Ah, so now you're arguing place instead of machines.
>
No...same thing. I have no objection to coed gyms with a section for
women's musculature. :-)


> > If there is a coed gym set up for women's body> > types in one area,
>
> No such thing, when it comes to the machines.
>
Yes, actually there is. In fact, there's an entire line of pink gym
equipment we could purchase for "The Fight Club" gym.
I'm sure they'd just love it. :-)


> > I also have no objection to that.
>
> Why not just be honest and say you want a place where women alone can
> work out, instead of all this nonsense about "women's type" workout
> machines. lol

I don't have to, Ben. The clubs are already providing what women want,
a place to socialize with men with a section to work out alone. :-)

Here's a blurb from "Curves" competion, "Contours"

http://www.contoursexpress.com/Contours%20Express%20Equipment.htm

"equipment is designed for women and sets us apart from the
competition.
You'll see results in much less time than with the hydraulic equipment
offered by our competitors. "
>
> www.nautilus.com
>
> I checked out their commercial series, and found *nothing* to indicate
> they had 'special' equipment for women. Then I called the 800 number
> and asked if they had 'women's-only' machines or machines designed for
> women's body types. You could tell the sales rep thought I was nuts.
> lol He pointed out that their machines were designed to be used by
> both men and women, and featured a full range of adjustability that
> could be performed in seconds.

You just don't know where to look, Ben. Here, I can help you, dear.

There is a reason that Shapes for Women is the most sought after
Hydraulic Fitness Equipment for 30 minute fitness centers and circuit
gyms.

http://www.shapesforwomen.com/equipment/thigh.asp

"Shapes for Women Hydraulic Fitness Equipment is simply the only
equipment on the market that is both affordable and durable enough to
last. "

You see, Ben. Providing support for one's 'thesis' isn't as hard as
you make it appear.

> Now, do you have anything to indicate otherwise?

Seems that I did.
>
> >(edit)

> > In the gym I'm using now, there is
> > equipment set for women in one part of the gym.
>
> Set aside for women's use, perhaps, but they're the same machines. Or
> perhaps you can get the brand and model names off them and let me
> verify.

I already have, Ben.
>
> > > >
> > > > > > > > By demanding men have access to those femininized programs and that
> > > > > > > > feminized equipment is like men demanding equal opportunities to having
> > > > > > > > access to birthing baths and hysterectomies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pretty much. Altho, it does my heart good thinking of big burly men
> > > > > > doing the mouse maze at 'Curves'. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, I'm big and burly and I'll try anything once. :) But I'm also
> > > > > mildly claustrophobic, so I may not like this maze very well, if it's
> > > > > what I think it is.
> > > >
> > > > No; it's crap. My mate's mom goes there, and it's really crumby.
> > >
> > > Ah.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Not at all. Both genders can engage in the same exercise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Young women and most men don't want Curves. It simply doesn't do much
> > > > > > for them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps, but that's a decisions made for social purposes.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, but it's also a decision made on physical ones.
> > >
> > > If so, they fell for a spurious selling point.
> >
> > I think their selling point is made to overweight middleaged women who
> > don't want to put up with men or real exercise. :-)
>
> And that's fine, Hy, I don't have a problem at all with it. Just don't
> complain when the reverse is applied.

I don't, as long as women aren't denied equal opportunity.
>
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is an issue about making suitable excercise programs available to men
> > > > > > > > and women. Should these spas and gyms *all* have to cater to *both* sexes
> > > > > > > > or can there not be a choice for men, women and/or both? Is Santa Rosa that
> > > > > > > > small that a variety of gyms cannot co-exist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure; that's the best idea; have a gym for both sexes with
> > > > > > specifically calibrated items in a seperate part for each. That sounds
> > > > > > cool. Where I'm presently residing, there is a pool and hot tubs
> > > > > > shared by all, with each restroom having it's own sauna. That seems to
> > > > > > make the most sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's sort of the question, is it not? Male-only private insitutions
> > > > > > > are under attack all over the country, so why would the reverse be
> > > > > > > acceptable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because with the reverse, no one has been denied equal opportunity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? So men have been able to get into business decisions made at
> > > > > all-women facilities?
> > > > >
> > > > Since so many more businesses are owned by men
> > >
> > > How many businesses owned by men can legally exclude women?
> >
> > It doesn't matter if the opportunities are made at the gym.
>
> Sure it does; opportunities are made everywhere.
>
> > >
> > > > the court has not yet> > seen the denial of equal opportunity as an issue for men declined entry > into places like Curves.
> > >
> > > So in your view, we can discriminate as long as it doesn't reach the
> > > same level. Gotcha.
> >
> > Well, until it reaches the level of provable opportunity lost, pretty
> > much. Men haven't shown that being denied entry to "Curves" is a
> > denial of a business opportunity.
>
> And you haven't shown that being denied admission into an all-male gym
> is a denial.

The courts have already decided that issue, Ben. It is a denial if men
own most businesses and women can't compete because they are excluded.
>
> > And, I think they'd have a hard time> showing that, as well.
>
> Absolutely, just as you really can't show the reverse.

It's already been done, Ben....do you want to close the barn door now,
after the horse is long gone.
>

> > > > > > > > I can understand if only one gym existed in town. Then certainly that one
> > > > > > > > should be accessible to all...both men, women and those who have special
> > > > > > > > needs. However if multiple facilities exist, why must they all cater to
> > > > > > > > everyone?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They need not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe there are time and accessibility considerations. Maybe there are
> > > > > > > differences in costs, or the quality of the facility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True, but probably not enough to create discrimination based on unequal
> > > > > > opportunity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds to me like you're trying to claim that women can't compete
> > > > > unless they have special set-asides.
> > > >
> > > > No. I'm suggesting that where a woman cannot obtain equal opportunity,
> > > > i.e. like in the VMI case where having a woman's school would not have
> > > > provided the same opportunity.
> > >
> > > So what happens if the female manager of a large condo building
> > > exercises with the female owner of a floor covering and paint store,
> > > and they cut a deal there. Does this not automatically exclude the
> > > male owners of such businesses?
> >
> > No. There are clubs where male owners can conduct business at the same
> > level.
>
> In that example, all others have been excluded, and it took place in
> the gym. So the correct answer is yes.

No, the reasoning of the court was that men held all the goodies, Ben,
and in the case of women's gyms men can get the goodies at men's gyms.
>
> > But if there is a provable trend that women are making
> > beau-coup business deals that exclude men, sure...men can bring suit.
>
> I doubt men would. They generally work around quite effectively.
>
You mean by trying new things that exclude women. Sure; women are
onto you.

> > As well as other female owners?> Because the one argument I've never
> > heard from feminists is that the> men who aren't part of that
> > particular social venue never get an> opportunity either--but I never saw them sue. What I *did* see them do
> > > was create alternate opportunities.
> >
> > I think that's what women are doing, on a much smaller level.
> > >
> > > > It has nothing to do with "set> asides". In fact, what you call 'set asides' is more about diversity
> > > > hires than about discrimination here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why can they not specialize...have some gyms designated men only,
> > > > > > > > some gyms women only and others for both genders?
> > > >
> > > > We can. But, if there is an opportunity being denied by the exclusion,
> > > > those being denied can challenge that in court,
> > >
> > > To the extent that it's being denied, it's being denied to women *and*
> > > men. There's a group of businessmen here who all go to deer camp
> > > together every year for a week. All kinds of deals get done. Every
> > > other business owner in town is denied the opportunities.
> >
> > Sure, and if women wanted to sue based on that, there's a chance they
> > would win, if they're being excluded.
>
> Yeah, I'd love to see a woman try and sue her way into a
> privately-owned deer camp lol. Hell, I'd let her go just to try and
> see her make it for a week. :)
>
> > The same thing holds true for
> > strip club business. But women can go hunting and to strip clubs if
> > they choose.
>
> Actually, more women are hunting, and it would appear that more are
> going to male strip bars.

Sure.
>
>which may be why it is> more prudent to have one gym for both with machines for men on one > side, for women on the other, and a pool, juice bar and tennis courts> shared by all.
> > > >
> > > > > > What has happened in the past there, was that women were excluded from
> > > > > > making money in clubs that excluded women, i.e. it was a matter of> > discrimination.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the sake of argument, let's grant that huge amounts of business get
> > > > > done at gyms.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, today, more business gets conducted on the golf course, and
> > > > in country clubs, but when you exclude women from being there, they
> > > > face discrimination in that process.
> > >
> > > When you exclude *anyone*, man or woman, then they don't have that
> > > opportunity. What those people then face is the necessity of making
> > > alternate opportunities. Plus, do you think for one second that these
> > > people make deals *only* at the country club?
> >
> > No. It's just one place. However, women have, in the past, proven
> > that they were denied huge opportunities by being excluded. And they
> > can do so again, if need be.
>
> How's that Augusta suit going?

Suit? Here's what has happened since the events

"Wyman's motivation to resign was reportedly driven by his view that
the inclusion of women members was no different than the admission of
black members to the Augusta National in 1990, and by the continued
statement by Johnson that there had been no complaints by the members
of the club regarding its exclusion of women to the club.

Wyman however estimated that 25%, a full 75 of the club's 300 members,
disagreed with Johnson's decision to refuse admission to women and he
hoped that his resignation would prompt other members to join his lead.


Wyman's resignation was then followed by that of John W. Snow, the
newly appointed Treasury Secretary in the Bush administration. Since
then, Sanford Weill, Citigroup chairman; Kenneth Chenault, president of
American Express; and Lloyd Ward, CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee,
have each reportedly made the argument directly to the members of the
Augusta National to allow women into their membership. "

>
> > Of course, your point is well taken that> the more women succeed in the business world, the more opportunities
> > will be made BY them instead. And I think courts will start finding
> > that way.
>
> Well, I'd hate to see men try and sue their way into conducting> business.

Men don't have to since they don't face discrimination of being men
hired by other men. ;-)
>
> > > >
> > > > Do you really expect anyone to believe that this> *wouldn't* happen
> > > > at an all-female gym? So what you're really arguing
> > > > > is that women should be allowed to discriminate.
> > > > >
> > > > No, I'm suggesting that facts still indicate that most business is
> > > > still owned by men. :-)
> > >
> > > So? A good business person usually takes the best deal, whether it's
> > > provided by a man or a woman.
> >
> > So, if women are excluded, the courts may determine unequal
> > opportunity.
>
> Have her prove that she has the best deal and it was turned down
> because she's a woman. In fact, the business owner doesn't even have
> to take the best monetary deal.

No, men can hire other men simply to discriminate against women.
Happens all the time, which is why women are suing.

>
> > > > There's nothing I'd like better than a law
> > > > suit finding for the inclusion of men becasue women are controlling
> > > > business there. Let me know when that happens.
> > >
> > > You'd fight it tooth and nail.
> >
> > Not at all, Ben.
> > >
> > > > > > > Personally, I say let private enterprises legally do as they wish and
> > > > > > > let the marketplace rule, but then, I'm not a social engineer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, because men already have the upper hand in business, it's rather
> > > > > > telling that you'd prefer the status quo. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > You still try this silly shaming nonsense, don't you? lol No, you'll
> > > > > notice that I don't oppose all-female gyms, I only oppose their
> > > > > presence when the reverse isn't allowed.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad. If a woman's gym isn't discriminating aginst men, they can
> > > > have their gym.
> > >
> > > Why, according to you, simply excluding one gender amounts to
> > > discrimination against the other.
> >
> > Not according to the LAW, Ben, which is what we're discussing here.
>
> We're discussing the uneven application of the law.

No, if men own all the businesses, it stands to reason that they can
keep all the goodies unless their hand is forced.
>
> > The law needs more than just separate accomodation to make something
> > discriminatory; it needs an unequal opportunity or some invideous
> > forms of discrimination.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > City council should take an inventory of gyms and excercise programs
> > > > that already exist in their town. Council has every right to grant or
> > > > deny business licenses based on community needs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now we're back to politicizing the subject.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The personal IS political. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > To a Marxist, perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > To a realist for sure.
> > >
> > > There's no such thing among gender feminists. :) >
> >
> > I pride myself on my realism, Ben.
>
> Blind. I'm blind.

Yes, you often have been.
>
> >
> > > > > > > > The community recreation centre in my town offers excercise programs for
> > > > > > > > men, women and both. And since this is a community centre funded by
> > > > > > > > tax-payers, they are obligated to meet the needs of the community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since it's community funded, yes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for
> > > > > > > > private business...look at what someone is proposing. If this business is
> > > > > > > > offering something that the community needs and wants, give it to them even
> > > > > > > > if that business caters solely to just one gender.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Nah. We have gone past this issue and now it seems most people want as
> > > > > > much for their daughters as for thier sons.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're actually responding to Heidi.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't make a difference. I'd respond to her on that issue just
> > > > like I'd respond to you.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not a decision a council should be making. Aside from the
> > > > > > > aforementioned politicization, maybe the community won't realize it
> > > > > > > wants that product or service until its offered. If there's no lawful
> > > > > > > reason to refuse the business license, then it should be granted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure there is. What if I want to open a strip club, depicting victims
> > > > > > of 911, falling naked from the rafters. :-) I think that might be
> > > > > > offensive to community standards, especially if I wanted to open it in
> > > > > > NYC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed that this would be offensive, but I bet the market would destroy
> > > > > it in a month.
> > > >
> > > > Are you kidding? I'd get so much press, it would be amazing. ;-)
> > >
> > > Sure...and then it would fade away.
> > >
> > The public would never allow it, Ben. It wouldn't have a chance to
> > fade away. Besides, I could change the venue; for the next month, I
> > could pick on Jewish concentration camp survivors, or
> > add a swimming pool and get Circ de soliel to do something with victims
> > of Katrina. :-)
> >
> > > > > > > > It's rather anti-business when local, state or federal government dictates
> > > > > > > > to business that they cannot offer a niche market that specializes..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's ok; there's more than enough good business ops without
> > > > > > discriminating.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, you're responding to Heidi. But what is Curves if not a
> > > > > business that caters to a niche market?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but with 'Curves' there is no discrimination agaisnt men; they
> > > > now have a male version of curves.
> > >
> > > Then you should have been satisfied with a female version of VMI.
> >
> > You just made my point. With VMI there was no equal opportunity
> > because of the schools prestigous nature.
>
> There was West Point. There was Annapolis.

No, Ben. Why should women have to go out of their area? And besides
VMI was more prestigeous than either of the other.
You lose again. Say, Ben....aren't you going to miss me even a little
bit? :-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Abolish Anti-Discrimination Laws
    ... >>> Not at my gym. ... > of the machines require a tool to change them. ... But in the gym I'm using now they have equipment set up ... There are clubs where male owners can conduct business at the same ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Abolish Anti-Discrimination Laws
    ... With the machines designed for women, ... > Not at my gym. ... >> The only adjustments for men are spacing on the bar or pads or whatnot, ... There are clubs where male owners can conduct business at the same ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Abolish Anti-Discrimination Laws
    ... >> of the machines require a tool to change them. ... But in the gym I'm using now they have equipment set up ... Not all the machines are easy to adjust. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Labor Day works last nerve
    ... >> Years ago I had a doctors prescription to attend a gym and perform ... >> certain exercises on certain pieces of equipment. ... > I attended a gym where the owner would periodically wipe the machines ... scattered amongst the machines. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Abolish Anti-Discrimination Laws
    ... Not at my gym. ... > The only adjustments for men are spacing on the bar or pads or whatnot, ... So men have been able to get into business decisions made at ... There are clubs where male owners can conduct business at the same ...
    (soc.men)
Loading