The gym I attend recently began an initiative that has gained traction in many other gyms across the country - a few hours each week where the gym and its facilities will be exclusively the domain of its female clientele. It's not exactly been popular with everyone however. Many male tears have been virtually shed as (some) men rant online about having their right to be sweaty at any hour of the day taken away from them; Daily Mail writer Peter Lloyd has even planned to sue his gym in Kentish Town for their implementation of women's only hours. But do they have a point? And is this an advocacy for positive discrimination as a positive step forward for equality rather than pushing us further back into segregation?
First of all, I want to break down the idea that these new hours are a way of getting back at men. The vast majority of the time gyms are open and available for everyone to use - in my gym it's just four hours a week dedicated to women only, meaning that unless a man was planning on spending every single hour that the gym was open there, he's really not losing any money or wasting his membership fee. The reasons for bringing this measure into effect are in part linked to male behaviour, however it must also be stressed that men and women clearly can co-exist in a fitness environment, or any environment for that matter. They can, but it doesn't mean they always do.
Of course there are instances of inappropriate or unwanted behaviour - a comment, a stare, even a bit of mansplaining a piece of equipment in order to get uncomfortably close to a woman. I don't believe that this is the norm in every situation, nor would I presume that every man in a gym is there to prey on women. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the world of fitness and regular exercising has throughout the course of history been a male space. A place where men came to prove their strength and superiority so that their womenfolk, still tied to the kitchen by their apron strings, would both marvel at their prowess and feel intimidated enough to be kept under the metaphorical male thumb. Things are different now thankfully. Yet being surrounded by powerful muscly men, men who could physically overpower you with little to no difficulty can be quite a disturbing reminder of the imbalance that still remains. Couple that with wearing tight gym clothes and exposing your body at the risk of public scrutiny, it's no wonder some women can feel particularly vulnerable in these situations.
This is why it's so important to have places where these women can feel safer and comfortable enough to exercise properly. It can never be healthy to discourage anyone from a healthy lifestyle. I do not speak for all women, but in a society where female bodies are held up for public comment and ridicule every day of our lives, from being catcalled in the street to the infamous 'Circle of Shame' in certain tabloids, it's reassuring to feel just a little protected from all this. Women don't need protecting from all men, but until they need protection from no men measures like women's only hours will always be necessary. It's not fair to punish a whole group for the crimes of the few, I hear Daily Mail readers cry. No, but it also isn't fair that we carry rape alarms and can never leave our drinks unattended at the bar for even a few seconds in case someone tries to spike them. The balance has been tilted so heavily in favour of one group for so long, that sometimes a strong shift in the other direction is needed in order to redress the disparity and one day make equality a reality.
This is precisely why we don't need a men's hour in the gym. In relation to his campaign, Peter Lloyd has spoken about issues that disproportionately affect men, such as mental health problems and male suicide. By hijacking serious causes such as this for his own misguided gain, he is actually undermining the severity of a problem that we do need to talk about. Traditionally men have been told to hide their emotions and that asking for help is a sign of weakness, whereas women have been viewed as naturally more emotional and vulnerable people. The truth is we can all be vulnerable, and we do need safe spaces to allow ourselves the support that we are often denied in everyday life and be comfortable in our situation, whether that be a male-only therapy session or female-only gym hours. Having something for women does not belittle the needs of men, and vice versa. It's about addressing that need, and what we as a society need in order to create balance in the bigger picture.
Which brings me onto the point of positive discrimination. It seems like an oxymoron at first, but is it in fact a necessary step towards achieving equality? Recruiters, parliamentary shortlists, even awards show categories, are now more than ever under pressure to meet quotas designed to ensure balanced representation across their fields. Often this comes in the form of prioritising candidates who do not conform to the straight, white, able bodied male identity. This has created an outcry from those who believe people should be singled out for recognition or praise based on skill alone, an argument that must of course be taken into account. For example, earlier today I was looking at the criteria for applying for a journalism internship. They were asking for passionate individuals, with a degree, with experience - it was a position I felt completely qualified for. I had the knowledge and the credentials to back it up. Then I saw that it was a position that was only open for applicants from a BAME or lower socio-economic background. This irritated me initially; why I should automatically be disallowed from a role I know I could fulfil perfectly? But that was when I realised: those people that could apply for that internship would have the same or even better experience than me. They were my peers, my equals in that regard. They hadn't been given a free pass and would be put through exactly the same process as me had I applied. I, however, had been given passes and opportunities in life that they simply had not. It had been easier for me to get that degree and that experience, purely from my good luck at being born into a white middle-class family. I hadn't earned that luck, but they would earn this internship. And until everyone has the same level of luck, how can we expect anything else in life to be given out equally? It may be overcompensation, but only because they were undercompensated for far too long.
So to those men who claim they are only against these gym hours because they feel it would be furthering the problem of discrimination, it might be worth pondering your own privilege before you think you can call out someone else's.
First of all, I want to break down the idea that these new hours are a way of getting back at men. The vast majority of the time gyms are open and available for everyone to use - in my gym it's just four hours a week dedicated to women only, meaning that unless a man was planning on spending every single hour that the gym was open there, he's really not losing any money or wasting his membership fee. The reasons for bringing this measure into effect are in part linked to male behaviour, however it must also be stressed that men and women clearly can co-exist in a fitness environment, or any environment for that matter. They can, but it doesn't mean they always do.
Of course there are instances of inappropriate or unwanted behaviour - a comment, a stare, even a bit of mansplaining a piece of equipment in order to get uncomfortably close to a woman. I don't believe that this is the norm in every situation, nor would I presume that every man in a gym is there to prey on women. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the world of fitness and regular exercising has throughout the course of history been a male space. A place where men came to prove their strength and superiority so that their womenfolk, still tied to the kitchen by their apron strings, would both marvel at their prowess and feel intimidated enough to be kept under the metaphorical male thumb. Things are different now thankfully. Yet being surrounded by powerful muscly men, men who could physically overpower you with little to no difficulty can be quite a disturbing reminder of the imbalance that still remains. Couple that with wearing tight gym clothes and exposing your body at the risk of public scrutiny, it's no wonder some women can feel particularly vulnerable in these situations.
This is why it's so important to have places where these women can feel safer and comfortable enough to exercise properly. It can never be healthy to discourage anyone from a healthy lifestyle. I do not speak for all women, but in a society where female bodies are held up for public comment and ridicule every day of our lives, from being catcalled in the street to the infamous 'Circle of Shame' in certain tabloids, it's reassuring to feel just a little protected from all this. Women don't need protecting from all men, but until they need protection from no men measures like women's only hours will always be necessary. It's not fair to punish a whole group for the crimes of the few, I hear Daily Mail readers cry. No, but it also isn't fair that we carry rape alarms and can never leave our drinks unattended at the bar for even a few seconds in case someone tries to spike them. The balance has been tilted so heavily in favour of one group for so long, that sometimes a strong shift in the other direction is needed in order to redress the disparity and one day make equality a reality.
This is precisely why we don't need a men's hour in the gym. In relation to his campaign, Peter Lloyd has spoken about issues that disproportionately affect men, such as mental health problems and male suicide. By hijacking serious causes such as this for his own misguided gain, he is actually undermining the severity of a problem that we do need to talk about. Traditionally men have been told to hide their emotions and that asking for help is a sign of weakness, whereas women have been viewed as naturally more emotional and vulnerable people. The truth is we can all be vulnerable, and we do need safe spaces to allow ourselves the support that we are often denied in everyday life and be comfortable in our situation, whether that be a male-only therapy session or female-only gym hours. Having something for women does not belittle the needs of men, and vice versa. It's about addressing that need, and what we as a society need in order to create balance in the bigger picture.
Which brings me onto the point of positive discrimination. It seems like an oxymoron at first, but is it in fact a necessary step towards achieving equality? Recruiters, parliamentary shortlists, even awards show categories, are now more than ever under pressure to meet quotas designed to ensure balanced representation across their fields. Often this comes in the form of prioritising candidates who do not conform to the straight, white, able bodied male identity. This has created an outcry from those who believe people should be singled out for recognition or praise based on skill alone, an argument that must of course be taken into account. For example, earlier today I was looking at the criteria for applying for a journalism internship. They were asking for passionate individuals, with a degree, with experience - it was a position I felt completely qualified for. I had the knowledge and the credentials to back it up. Then I saw that it was a position that was only open for applicants from a BAME or lower socio-economic background. This irritated me initially; why I should automatically be disallowed from a role I know I could fulfil perfectly? But that was when I realised: those people that could apply for that internship would have the same or even better experience than me. They were my peers, my equals in that regard. They hadn't been given a free pass and would be put through exactly the same process as me had I applied. I, however, had been given passes and opportunities in life that they simply had not. It had been easier for me to get that degree and that experience, purely from my good luck at being born into a white middle-class family. I hadn't earned that luck, but they would earn this internship. And until everyone has the same level of luck, how can we expect anything else in life to be given out equally? It may be overcompensation, but only because they were undercompensated for far too long.
So to those men who claim they are only against these gym hours because they feel it would be furthering the problem of discrimination, it might be worth pondering your own privilege before you think you can call out someone else's.
Comments
Post a Comment