The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Sexism in recreation?
MrIamMe
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Greetings. This is a thread about sexism in recreation.
I noticed in the "Convicted by Facebook" thread the word womyn, which reminded me of my university days where half of my uni's recreation area was redefined as a womyn's area, and then half of the remaining space was allocated to the gay and lesbian sector of the population.
A few of us applied for a guys area, but was rejected on the grounds that it would be sexist to have a male only area.
More recently, mens clubs here in Australia have been getting sued over thier denial of entry of females to thier ranks. However female only gyms are florishing.
So what are things like in the US? Am I crazy or is thier a reverse sexism against men occuring in recreational environs?
I noticed in the "Convicted by Facebook" thread the word womyn, which reminded me of my university days where half of my uni's recreation area was redefined as a womyn's area, and then half of the remaining space was allocated to the gay and lesbian sector of the population.
A few of us applied for a guys area, but was rejected on the grounds that it would be sexist to have a male only area.
More recently, mens clubs here in Australia have been getting sued over thier denial of entry of females to thier ranks. However female only gyms are florishing.
So what are things like in the US? Am I crazy or is thier a reverse sexism against men occuring in recreational environs?
MrIamMe on
0
Posts
There's no such thing as "reverse" sexism. It's just sexism.
There's a huge difference between country club and gym.
Err, why did you apply for a guys' area? Are you some kind of collective of raving douches? I honestly can see no reason for why you would do that, EXCEPT to make a petulant, and immature point.
Everywhere is a guy's area, or a straight area. Which is rather the point of the women's area or GLBT area initiatives.
Except in this case, where (supposedly) only one quarter was in fact the guy's area.
Although they can't really keep them out of the gay area, I guess.
Fine, everywhere else then.
The only sensible critique I can think of is if the demand for the open area was vastly greater than the GLBT and Women's area and thus the size of teh areas did not accurately relfect the demographics.
EDIT: Or, the distinguishing features of the demographics themselves need to be the problematic factor; but then, you are not creating separate recreational areas, you are segregating men and women for safety concerns or whatever and you are creating a Men's Area and a Women's Area at the same point so the OP's post wouldn't hold water.
But when you go beyond the definition of discrimination and sexism and look at this in context, I have to agree with Apothe0sis that there really is no good reason for a designated "guys" area in recreational areas.
Next, how are you supposed to meet chicks if you just go off to your segregated guys area?
And last, I think Oboro's got the best point: why bother segregating at all? Still, the fact that one group feels the need for a private area does not necessitate that all groups be equally represented. That literally WOULD be segregation, no?
People get oggled less in golfing attire than when working out.
edit: and mai-kero, i'll admit you make a valid point with the golfing attire, but someone could wear baggy sweatpants and a t-shirt whilst working out, and while unlikely it is possible for someone to be "oggled" in golf attire, so I really don't think it should matter all that much on the legality side of things.
EDIT: Quid beat me to it. Seriously, can we see some proof besides a page long rant about "what if" statements?
Would you argue that people shouldn't whine about all changing rooms being unisex?
Most gym attire is pretty revealing, and considering the nature of the facility, I can understand why people of both sexes would want to be kept away from prying eyes.
A country club is nothing at all like a gym. Goddamn, it's a fucking restaurant, bar, and golf course. The only reason the southern old guys wanted women out was so they wouldn't compete with them in golf. Also because they're from the south and hate the idea that anyone would have the same rights as rich white guys.
Agreed. OPer, please enlighten us.
Well no, that's not the issue. The thing with country clubs and the like is that they're massive networking hubs for the professional classes, and if you're a professional woman trying to get ahead you're de facto excluded from what is a huuuuuge part of being a success - Meeting People Who Matter. Lol SystemicSexism etc.
I'm not a fan of women's gyms, but IAmMe, are you aware that Fernwood, the biggest (and as far as I'm aware, only major) women's health club chain in Aus is actually owned and operated by fundamentalist christians? You're probably looking in the wrong place if you want to label them sexist, because they have no interest in being gender-equal. Fundies really believe quite strongly in separate spaces for the genders in public and private, and most of them don't even pay lip service to the notion of 'seperate-but-equal'.
My gym's pretty good - I don't get ogled much (but then, I'm a long way from hot especially when working out :P) and its a friendly atmosphere, but not everywhere is like that... I can understand people who want their own space.
The question at hand, however, is whether it is also the prerogative of the college to address these queasies ... possibly. We really have no information from the OP so it's hard to say.
I'm perfectly happy to maintain this delusion, so don't feel obligated to provide any evidence.
Tricky question. I tend to think unis are one of those places where you can experiment with this sort of stuff, but the funding situation is quite different here as opposed to US colleges.
Irony. lol
But yeah, Sexism doesn't seem to be a huge issue in the US these days. I think there may have been something along those lines in our history, but it's come and gone for the most part. Sexism is hardly a thing of the past in any country, but it's a lot harder to notice nowadays, with so many lawsuits going around. All of the issues you hear about today are about sexual orientation and race. Gender related things seem less prevalent now.
I honestly don't remember the last time I heard anything about sexism in the news, but you wouldn't believe how long Mel Gibson was put through the ringer, when he ranted about jews after getting caught drunk driving.
sweetie, if you haven't heard anything, then there's nooooo way you're even looking. Yeah, things are better than 1973, but come on.
That's the whole fucking point, for women. Look what you've just assumed - that mixed-areas are okay places to meet 'chicks'. You don't even seem aware of how derogatory sounding this is - which just serves to highlight why women-only places still have reason to exist!
I can only hope this comment was an attempt at humour and my sarcasm meter is deficient.
No need to speak hypothetically - many women are uncomfortable in a unisex gym.
I wear loose fitting t-shirts (although I own a couple of tight-fitting running tops - but guess what I prefer?) but these aren't actually the most practical items of clothing to wear. Few women wear tight fitting clothes around the gym to show off their assets - but it's funny how it's seen as their fault 'and they can choose to wear loose fitting clothing if they want to!'
Okay, there may be the odd exception where a woman dresses skimpily in a gym solely to get a buzz from all the stares sent her way. But anecdotally speaking, mixed gyms become a problem because it is almost solely men doing the ogling (there are two gym instructors on the SA forums who could give you accounts of this - and of the creepy old guys who come into the gym just for that purpose!). (Also, men dominate the free weights area and the women never get a chance to use them - but that's another issue :P)
Seriously, do any of you actually think before posting? This is yet another example why, geez, women require a little space.
Look, I'm all for equality, but this thread is just proving why that isn't happening yet.
In my opinion, it's a slippery slope. If "women require a little space" for the reasons you mentioned, so long as it remains subjective feelings and no harassment or otherwise is taking place, it remains purely subjective. In that universe, the men, the women, and any other demographic imaginable have equal claim to "XYZ-only" space. You need to show demonstrable special concern -- all that your stance otherwise shows, Janson, is the (I wish it were) 'outmoded' idea that men will be pigs and women will suffer for it. You can't work along that assumption until it becomes a reality; it's a logical fallacy otherwise. You're making a generalization and generating special treatment from it.
I understand that, given past evidence, were there any demographic which deserved a private sector in an otherwise unisex gym, it would be the women; really though, if that private space exists at all it seems as if it would make more sense to just block it out on a first-come first-serve basis as private or semi-private space, or rotate it. People are entitled to their feelings -- there may (and probably does) exist a demographic of self-conscious men that would prefer to exercise away from women, and with like-minded people solely intent on exercising if not exercising by their lonesome. All of these demands should be met, and cycling or 'renting out' (for free) this malleable space seems the most flexible way of doing so -- otherwise, some demographic will always be left wanting and be logically valid in doing so because honoring anyone does just that ... and meanwhile, the space remains finite.
Men get up in arms over these "women only spaces" because the need for women-only and LGBT-only spaces implies that those groups have reason to be sacred of straight, white men. And although I understand the reasons for it and I don't mind those spaces existing, it shouldn't be too much of a fucking empathetic leap to see dudes being offended by the fact that we're all assumed sexual predators.
This besides the fact that on college campuses (as mentioned in the OP), it's often scarce resources (like student group office space, for example) that are being offered to these straight-male-excluding groups.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
they do