[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
BrwnbellyYankee wrote:
It’s okay for women to have women’s only gyms, but it’s sexist when I want a gym without women.[/quote]
I don’t know about anyone else, but I think a gym without women sounds pretty gay…literally.(not that there is anything wrong with that).
[quote]Kratos wrote:
Another reason the Black club vs. White club is different is that there aren’t a bunch of Black supremacist groups runing around promoting hatred, vandalizing White churches, or burning giant wooden afro picks in white people’s yards. Also, I don’t remember any masses of white folks getting blasted with firehoses, beaten, and lynched for no damn reason.
It’s going to take a long time for that connotation to fade. Hell, there was a lynching around this area as late as the goddamn 70’s, and let’s not forget that little incident in Jasper.
As long as the KKK is around, “White Power,” or “Whites Only” is always going to carry that stigma. If there was a Black equivalent to the KKK, things might be different. It’s not exactly right, but that’s kind of the price you pay for 100+ years of segregation and subjugation.[/quote]
While we agree on that a blacks-only private club would be ok and a general-whites-only club would not be ok, I must disagree with the relevance of the additional reasons you present.
Atrocities, racist violence, and oppression do not seem to me to be relevant reasons why a general whites-only country-club, let’s say, should be considered “not ok” while a blacks-only country club should be considered “ok”, given that the vast majority of members of either club would not have been involved in such incidents.
The logical reason why the one is “not ok” while the other is “ok” is simply because of the relative numbers. In the one case, the excluded people would be made into “outcasts” from general society (in a certain sense); while in the other case they would not.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
I don’t know about you but I have been persecuted for being white, and I live in the capitol of the US. [/quote]
I would love to hear the specifics surrounding your persecution.
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Atrocities, racist violence, and oppression do not seem to me to be relevant reasons why a general whites-only country-club, let’s say, should be considered “not ok” while a blacks-only country club should be considered “ok”, given that the vast majority of members of either club would not have been involved in such incidents.
The logical reason why the one is “not ok” while the other is “ok” is simply because of the relative numbers. In the one case, the excluded people would be made into “outcasts” from general society (in a certain sense); while in the other case they would not.[/quote]
I offering justification for the D.Standard, but I think that the history has a very valid impact on how people see things. As i said, it’s the connotation. Just like a damn Confederate Flag. Not all who fly it are bigots, but who knows that just looking?
What about Blacks telling White jokes, but Whites who do that are racist? I know plenty of Blacks who are racist, but think that they’re not. Like those New Black Panther fools; I agree they had no business at Duke. I never realy have heard much else about them, but of course, we always have Master Farakhan. These clowns generally don’t get that much mainstream publicity, until they get an opportunity such as the LaCrosse team incident.
Personallly I don't give a damn about all this separatist BS. Bottom line is we're all Earthlings. I agree with T in DC. All these walls need to come down, and people need to get over a lot of this.
And other than to make trouble, why the Hell would you want to bust in on an all-women's gym? I'd be worried about getting gyno from being around all that estrogen.
[quote]Beatnik wrote:
It is a little stupid. Where i live i have to drive for 35-40 mins before i can find a gym that allows males. Meanwhile there is 6 women only gyms. I dont wish to attend them, i would probably just be uncomfortable. But i need a gym.
[/quote]
The reality of this situation is that these women only “gyms” (like Curves) are designed for middled aged women who are uncomfortable with their physical selves and are intimidated by the glamor gyms or more hardcore gyms. They are not the type of facility most men would want to train at. The equipment is comprised of a circuit of machines, no mirrors and no free weights (of any signifigance).
Now if some guy understands all this and feels this is the place for him, fine. I’ve got no problem with that. The street runs both ways, and the women need to understand this.
However, I must say that the whole Curves idea was a brilliant one. Many older (and younger) overweight women are intimidated by the typical gym atmosphere. They see the little aerobic queens and the spandex bunnies and feel it’s hopeless that they could ever reach that level of fitness. They feel out of place and uncomfortable.
Now you take the same overweight women and put them in an atmosphere where most of the women have the same weight issues and it becomes much more comfortable for them. They can commiserate with each other, don’t feel like they’re being made fun of, and can actually enjoy the time they’re there. The equipment is easy to use and they don’t need to know anymore than how to adjust the machine to fit them.
Curves has tried to create an atmosphere that will facillate these women adding an exercise program to their lives. If you add men, then it get’s all weird for them again. Fewer women will want to join and this will affect the bottom line. So this is why they don’t want to allow men. But legally, should they have to let them join, I’d have to say yes.
I don’t know if there are any male versions of Curves. But I have been to a few “fitness clubs”, however that seemed to be heading that direction.
[quote]gojira wrote:
Beatnik wrote:
It is a little stupid. Where i live i have to drive for 35-40 mins before i can find a gym that allows males. Meanwhile there is 6 women only gyms. I dont wish to attend them, i would probably just be uncomfortable. But i need a gym.
The reality of this situation is that these women only “gyms” (like Curves) are designed for middled aged women who are uncomfortable with their physical selves and are intimidated by the glamor gyms or more hardcore gyms. They are not the type of facility most men would want to train at. The equipment is comprised of a circuit of machines, no mirrors and no free weights (of any signifigance).
Now if some guy understands all this and feels this is the place for him, fine. I’ve got no problem with that. The street runs both ways, and the women need to understand this.
However, I must say that the whole Curves idea was a brilliant one. Many older (and younger) overweight women are intimidated by the typical gym atmosphere. They see the little aerobic queens and the spandex bunnies and feel it’s hopeless that they could ever reach that level of fitness. They feel out of place and uncomfortable.
Now you take the same overweight women and put them in an atmosphere where most of the women have the same weight issues and it becomes much more comfortable for them. They can commiserate with each other, don’t feel like they’re being made fun of, and can actually enjoy the time they’re there. The equipment is easy to use and they don’t need to know anymore than how to adjust the machine to fit them.
Curves has tried to create an atmosphere that will facillate these women adding an exercise program to their lives. If you add men, then it get’s all weird for them again. Fewer women will want to join and this will affect the bottom line. So this is why they don’t want to allow men. But legally, should they have to let them join, I’d have to say yes.
I don’t know if there are any male versions of Curves. But I have been to a few “fitness clubs”, however that seemed to be heading that direction.[/quote]
I agree. I know a lot of older women [my mother and aunt and friends] who started out at Curves and increased their fitness and health by leaps and bounds. Their was a comfort level at Curves that they didn’t find at other gyms that allowed them to make these improvements.
You have to consider the reasons for supposed ‘segregation’. It should allowed if the motivation and the rewards are worthwhile. This is the private realm. But ‘segregation’ and ‘discrimination’ is even allowed in the public realm with the state as actor if it is found to serve a compelling interest.
The standard is just very high, and it’s exceedingly rare that it’s found the interest is a compelling one and the separation is narrowly tailored to achieving it and the least intrusive and only real legitimate way of doing it.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
blitzkrg wrote:
my point wasnt really about golf.
that was just what came to mind.
I just think it’s bullshit, that men cant have a mens only “club”
because some bitch will sue to get in.
I feel the same about this situation, but i feel it’s like payback, so i’m supporting the man in this situation.
If no women did that shit, then this guy could go jump in the river…
and i dont know why someone tried to turn this into a race thing…
it’s not about excluding woman from the sport.
there is LPGA,WPGA,etc etc. it’s not about exclusion from said activity.
women can have a women’s gym… NO PROBLEM… just dont come bitching because you cant get into a guys gym,golf, whatever…
It’s a little different. Annika Sorenstam was leagues above the other women at least until Michele Wie came along. There was no competition for her if she was precluded from the supposedly ‘mens only’ PGA.
And I believe the prize money is higher on the mens as well. She deserves a right to compete. If a women ever exists that can hold her own at the professional level in football she should be able to play in the NFL too. But somehow I doubt that’s going to happen.
And there are plenty of mens only clubs that are not measured by ability to play a sport or perform and activity. And no one’s bitching that women can’t join. If they are, no one’s taking them seriously.
[/quote]
There are plenty of cases of women trying to join men’s clubs and taking it to court or protesting by other means. Perhaps you recall what has gone on at Augusta Country Club, where the officers of the club were basically pilloried because women are not allowed to become members.
Also, several smaller colleges have eliminated fraternities and replaced them with co-ed organizations after women on those campuses protested and won. Yet, several of these colleges still permit female-only sororities because women need a place to be away from men.
The difference between men and women is that we don’t want to join women’s clubs, whereas women seem to think there are some deep mysterious secrets that men keep within the men only clubs. That’s the only explanation I can think of.
I just view the double standard as yet another area where we just shrug our shoulders and say “whatever” byatch. It’s not worth fighting too hard over, imo. But don’t expect me to change my behavior, because that won’t happen. And if it offends you, too bad, it was a men-only club and you forced your way in, so deal with it.
DB
Meh, these women-only gyms generally suck ass anyways. What self-respecting T-Man would be seen in one? According to my (female) sources, women-only gyms consist of free weights that go up to 30, old machines, few mirrors, tons of mats (because lying down=exercise) comfy couches in the gym and locker room (because sitting down=exercise) and a whole lotta suck.
The owners spend more on making the change room nice than on equipment. The patrons are generally orthodox Muslim women (no joke, culture dictates it), fat chicks who think guys are undressing them in the other gym (OK there, tubby) or, my personal favourite, the wellness guru ie. the lazy bum who is skinny-fat and spends too much on candles.
Let these broads wallow in their mediocrity. Me, I’m going to the squat rack.
[quote]gojira wrote:
I don’t know if there are any male versions of Curves. But I have been to a few “fitness clubs”, however that seemed to be heading that direction.[/quote]
When I left the Los Angeles area to come here almost 2 years ago, I heard of a male version of “Curves”…it was called (are you ready for this?):
“Cuts”
This guy is either a fruit, a freak, or a perverted fuck.
lmao, I don’t know if it’s “equivalent” to Curves if it targets the homosexual population.
After thinking about this a little bit more, I remember reading a post here a month or so ago talking about men and women. I think that the problem lies within that there ARE differences between men and women which will never change ie: gender. So unless women want to share locker rooms EVERYWHERE along with everything else, thier argument is nil.
I realize this stuff doesn’t seem like it’s worth it arguing over, but if we don’t stand our ground, crazy women supremasists may very much change the way we live.
My friend and I were discussing a point that is somewhat related to this topic not long ago. We decided that if women lost the ability to have sex, it would be the fastest extinction of a species ever seen on planet earth. The motherfucking dinosaurs would be envious.
seriously though, the only reason men put up with their shit is becuase of the slim possiblilty of sleeping with them. If women weren’t able to have sex, and one nagged me to take out the garbage, i’d probably throw her out the window.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It’s a little different. Annika Sorenstam was leagues above the other women at least until Michele Wie came along. There was no competition for her if she was precluded from the supposedly ‘mens only’ PGA.
And I believe the prize money is higher on the mens as well. She deserves a right to compete. If a women ever exists that can hold her own at the professional level in football she should be able to play in the NFL too. But somehow I doubt that’s going to happen.
And there are plenty of mens only clubs that are not measured by ability to play a sport or perform and activity. And no one’s bitching that women can’t join. If they are, no one’s taking them seriously.
[/quote]
You continue to promote this double standard by saying that a woman should be able to compete in a men’s tournament because the prize money is higher. Well, why not let men compete in the LPGA? I’m sure there are some that are good enough. It would end up that women win no prizes at all.
Same for the WNBA, and all the other womens only sports. Or should we only allow women’s only leagues and if they so wish, they should be allowed to play in a coed league?
As for bitching, there was plenty of bitching that women couldn’t join Augusta.
Dude, did you just take your ConLaw exam or something?
LOL
Mentally undressed by men?
I don’t know about you,but when I go to the gym to workout I “workout”.I don’t sit and talk on my phone,or hit on girls.I could care less if a hot girls by me.Like I’ve never seen that before.I think trying to bench press more whenever I hit the gym is more important than hitting on some stupid girl.
I think they need to grow the fuck up.
I think we need to get back at them anyway.Look at EVERY single sport they tried to take over,haha!
Besides,what in the hell is a soy boy doing in a womens gym anyway?
He needs to grow some balls,throw away the five pound dumbbells and try some deadlifts for a change.
My sixth sense,Cthulhu
[quote]Ibid wrote:
Here’s an article about a guy who insists that he has the right to join a women-only fitness club. He says the gym is discriminating against him. Others say women should be allowed to work out in a place where they won’t be mentally undressed by men.
Any thoughts?
It’s from the Press Democrat newspaper in California…
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/NEWS/606020319/1033/NEWS01
[/quote]
why a male-only gym would rule:
the music would kick ass. Why do you think they crank all that garbage - b/c the fat housewives hate metal/hardcore hip-hop… “it scares them”
less useless machines - taking up space to attract the fat housewife crowd.
less cardio machines - again taking up space
more squat racks / lifting platforms
they would allow chalk
they wouldn’t give you shit for Deadlifting, or doing Olympic lifts - such intensity scares the housewives
the gym wouldn’t be so damn bright, spotless and shiny all the time.
no rugrats running around unsupervised in the lifting area. What the fuck? I actually saw this at my gym - at least they’ve gotten a lot better about it.
No (hot) women = more focus
No (hot) women = keeps a lot of the male dickheads (frat curl guy, other gym offenders) we love to make fun on these boards away.
…like Hilary Clinton…God I hate her.
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
After thinking about this a little bit more, I remember reading a post here a month or so ago talking about men and women. I think that the problem lies within that there ARE differences between men and women which will never change ie: gender. So unless women want to share locker rooms EVERYWHERE along with everything else, thier argument is nil.
I realize this stuff doesn’t seem like it’s worth it arguing over, but if we don’t stand our ground, crazy women supremasists may very much change the way we live.[/quote]
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It’s a little different. Annika Sorenstam was leagues above the other women at least until Michele Wie came along. There was no competition for her if she was precluded from the supposedly ‘mens only’ PGA.
And I believe the prize money is higher on the mens as well. She deserves a right to compete. If a women ever exists that can hold her own at the professional level in football she should be able to play in the NFL too. But somehow I doubt that’s going to happen.
And there are plenty of mens only clubs that are not measured by ability to play a sport or perform and activity. And no one’s bitching that women can’t join. If they are, no one’s taking them seriously.
[/quote]
The main problem with Annika playing in the Colonial back in 2003 wasn’t that she is a woman but that she did not bother to qualify her playing abilities via legitimate means.
Instead she was invited by one of the sponsors of the tournament.
She can go and enter the Q-School just like any other male golfer and gain exempt (from qualifying) status or she could attempt to Monday qualify the week of just about any PGA tournament.
She didn’t bother to attempt to qualify her playing abilities. Some sponsor was impressed by her LPGA performance and decided to use the sponsoring power to invite her into the tournament.
How did she match up against the male golfers? She didn’t make the weekend cut (along with about 90+ other male golfers for the week).
I am not sure how to take your Michelle Wie comment either. Has she somehow knocked Annika down a few pegs? How many tournament wins does Wie have again (on the LPGA)?
She is another that has been sponsor exempted into several mens golf tournaments. Has she played well? Definitely. Has she made the cut? Not on the PGA tour and only once in a Korean PGA tournament.
Should she be playing in any of these tournaments? Definitely not. She has not proven her playing abilites by qualifying to be in the field of the tournaments. She is taking away one spot from the field (which is a limited number). This one spot could be used by someone who has made it through the qualifying process and is trying to earn a living.
Now all of this is about to change. Maybe. On Monday, Michelle Wie is playing in the U.S. Open sectional qualifying. If she places in the low 18 out of 153 golfers then she will qualify to participate in the U.S. Open (really is an “Open” tournament to both men and women) later this month. Will she do it?
If she manages to do this, then she has certainly accomplished something that Annika has not. Annika has not bothered to attempt it.
[quote]baretta wrote:
My friend and I were discussing a point that is somewhat related to this topic not long ago. We decided that if women lost the ability to have sex, it would be the fastest extinction of a species ever seen on planet earth. The motherfucking dinosaurs would be envious.
seriously though, the only reason men put up with their shit is becuase of the slim possiblilty of sleeping with them. If women weren’t able to have sex, and one nagged me to take out the garbage, i’d probably throw her out the window.[/quote]
For some reason what you said seems very sexist\mysoginistic to me. But, I see your logic and I agree that if women couldn’t\didn’t want to have sex anymore the vast majority of men would stop bothering with them.
Extinction of the species hardly though. There’s probably enough sperm frozen in depositories around the world to impregnate a woman 100x over.
By any case good post 
.