Envy

[leenwebb]

Girls probably use them because they feel their inner thighs are flabby and they want to "target" (!!!) that area.

I think that's the case about 99% of the time. Are there really people who go to the gym and say, "Hmmm... In order to attract Mr Beefcake over there, I will strap myself into this contraption and do totally awkward leg movements"? Those machines remind me of stirrups on an exam table, personally.

But I guess you'd say thinking a girl wants sexual attention for using such machines is the same as thinking she wants it for wearing short skirts?

Yeah, I am one of those crazy people who thinks that I should be able to wear what I want (or do whatever I want at the gym) without it being assumed that I'm doing it to get some guy's attention.

[ewerbos]

I doubt there are many cases where thinking is that clear-cut. Nonetheless, most girls will be aware of the effect that such motions will have on fellows--So then the question becomes, were they thinking, "I want my thighs to not be flabby, and I will use the machine, in spite of what the guys think," or perhaps "I want my thighs to not be flabby, plus, guys will look at me," or some confused conflicted combination of these. But--And it's important to note--It doesn't really matter in the end, because the piece of information which swings the decision is rational (though incorrect--no targeting!).

In most decisions, there are side effects which will be either beneficial or detrimental and which will have minimal effect on the actual decision unless it is a case where you are wavering. In the case of the abductor machines--Who cares, not so useful anyway. In more important decisions which might be difficult to make, such as lifting real weight, if what people are thinking is having a detrimental effect--Well, that's pretty durn sucky.

And as for clothes--I'd kind of like to wear sexy gym clothes sometimes, because it is pretty neat to feel sexy and strong. I almost never do, however, because I don't want people to think I'm going to the gym to impress dudes, rather than to lift heavy. If I were really awesome, I wouldn't care what people think, and it would affect my lifts--But I do, and it probably would. I'm not sure it would be helpful to be wondering if people were staring at me and what they were thinking in sexy clothes. In a T-shirt and sweats, _clearly_ no one is looking, so I can concentrate on myself (and if it's self-trickery, so be it!).

[leenwebb]

Whatever happened to the idea that lots of gyms are full of middle-aged moms walking away on the treadmill? That's who is always working out on the nautilus machines at my gym, and so the whole "what will the mens think?!?!!" aspect of the adductor machines is doubly-confusing to me.

because I don't want people to think I'm going to the gym to impress dudes

That's totally lame. Not you're totally lame, but it's lame that you have to take that into consideration. The workout pants I wear are not the un-sexiest clothes I own, but what's important is that I can SQUAT in them! I tried on about 14 pairs before I found ones that would actually let me do an ATG squat.

That's what we should care about, and that's why it pisses me off to hear people in these forums make sexual jokes about women in the gym. They wonder why there aren't more women lifting heavy? It's because they're sitting in the weight room making jokes like that.

[DaveC]

I think it was an innocent joke. It had nothing to do with women being 'sexy for the mens' at the gym, and everything to do with the two positions that machine varies between.

Could've just as easily been called the 'good boy/bad boy' machine.

[sumoboy]

I agree with DaveC, my amusement was partly due to how funny those machines were named, and partly due to the fact that those machines do little or nothing from a strength training standpoint.

I have nothing but respect for anyone on our forums here - the same goes for anyone in the gym that works hard and knows the value behind strength training, and I am sure the rest of the guys didn't mean to laugh about that in a chauvanistic/jerklike way.

[Motivation]

MOM, DAD, STOP FIGHTING, PLEASE!!!!

[Rugger]

I'm not going to bother to unpack the entire patriarchy for you. It just bums me out -- I get alot of sexist shit at the gym, what with gross comments and leering and jokes. I had thought that this community might be a little more aware, since so many of us spend our time fighting against dumb gym advice and so many of the men here are dealing with their own (generally skinny-based) image issues.

Making fun of women for using the goofy machine = A-OK. The part that bugs me is the whole "bad girl/good girl" shit, as if the women working out in a public space are there only for your sexual pleasure.

Okay, I hadn't thought for a second that the "bad girl/good girl" thing could be taken as anything other than an fairly innocent joke referring to leg positioning on the machine. Any making fun of anyone using that machine (and I do see a fair number of guys using it supplement their leg presses, ugh) is because of how stupid and useless it is.

I'm generally quite sympathetic towards people with image issues, and I think both genders are effected equally by the horrible uncaring monster that is the media and fitness industry. What I tend to be less sympathetic about are people who do the same shit for 6 months and see no result, then continue doing that same shit for another 6 months before making excuses and quitting. It's that lack of intelligent thinking, blind adherence to the established norm, and unwillingness to work hard that causes me to be a cynical jerk that loves to make fun of people on the internet.

It sucks that you have to workout with assholes, and thank you for not unpacking the entire patriarchy for me.

[ewerbos]

It's unfortunate that some people don't figure out how to work out effectively in the gym, but to be fair, this stems from not only lack of information, but lack of the knowledge that there is more information to be had. It would be possible (though wrong) for someone exercising for six months without results, following programs they thought were good, to conclude that they just don't have the genetic makeup to succeed.

Personally, I don't think there's much point to deriding people for their lack of information. Educate folks, feel sad for them--But I know for myself that there are no doubt many things that I ought to understand which I've never even heard of to try.

[JollyClaws]

Making fun of women for using the goofy machine = A-OK.

You do not get to say what is OK and what is not. I will say what I want and there is nothing you can do about it.

The part that bugs me is the whole "bad girl/good girl" shit

It's not "shit", it's a funny joke. Nobody who hears it will be able to forget it whenever they see an ab/adductor machine.

as if the women working out in a public space are there only for your sexual pleasure.

Does it make you feel better to speculate about my frame of mind, based on a post on an internet forum? I believe you are acting here as if you are mildly insane.

I had thought that this community might be a little more aware

This "community" has nothing to do with how your hopes and fears intersect with my behavior. I'm one person, not a community. There are 2400 registered users here; the rest have nothing to do with how I conduct myself.

I get alot of sexist shit at the gym

Deal with it. You're not a victim of anything. You don't get to use meaningless words like "sexist" in a discussion with me.

I'm not going to bother to unpack the entire patriarchy for you.

You don't get to use this sort of jargon with me. Keep the anti-intellectual buzzwords between you and the other victims. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to use language and concepts whose definitions everyone can agree on. Those terms exist only to stifle debate; they're the intellectual equivalent of holding your breath until you get your way.

Advice is cheap, but here's mine: shrug it off and grin and bear it.

[ewerbos]

@JollyClaws: While there's not much point in just complaining as you say, I don't think that makes meanness any more useful. There are lots of jokes that are "funny" but that do lasting harm to other people. There is no point in making such jokes.

Maybe people's skin should be thicker; I know mine should. Nonetheless, I think very few people have perfectly thick skin, especially when insults come in the form of subtle digs at a person's self-image. Being as rude and mean as you feel like all the time, because, you know, every one should be strong and perfect and not take offense, is nonsense.

How much mean can you get away with? That's a trickier question. I actually found that joke funny myself, and wasn't much offended by it, maybe because I don't use those machines, and because my attitude going to the gym is absolutely non-sexual. I think the answer is that, ideally, one really should think about everything one says--what the audience is, how it will affect that audience (long term and short term), and how likely it is that your words will be propagated elsewhere. Every word is an opportunity to make other people better, happier, and more balanced--Or just the opposite.

"I say what I want, damn them all!" is easy but patently irrational.

[leenwebb]

There are lots of jokes that are "funny" but that do lasting harm to other people.

Totally true, and I think it's also often overlooked that they can do harm even when the harmed people aren't right there. It's like making some joke that plays off a racist stereotype, like... "black people are all gangsters". Even if there's no black person in the room, it does harm to laugh at those stereotypes.

(Wait, what were we talking about? Oh yeah! A crappy curl-based workout routine and a diet based on cottage cheese! )

[mjh]

patriarchy: male dominated culture, language and dialogue. It's not jargon, and it does have a meaning that people agree on. Sexism, also, is far from meaningless.

If anyone is stifling debate its the person who dismisses another's concerns as meaningless and asserts their (imagined) authority to define the terms and acceptable terminology (not to mention questioning the other person's sanity, which is, to be honest, pretty pathetic).

The original joke is sexist, because good girl/bad girl is about sex, right? The joke is about the woman's vagina. I also thought it was funny, but don't pretend that it doesn't sexualise women that use that stupid machine. It didn't bother me, but I understand how and why it bothered leenweb.

[JollyClaws]

Ewerbos: I don't agree that the joke was mean or a shot at anyone's self image. It's a joke that's funny on several levels. Meanness is in the eye of the beholder.

Your admonition that I should think before I speak, lest I run afoul of some imagined speech code is a slippery slope that I'm not really willing to endorse. Where does it end Ewerbos? Am I allowed to make a crack about "riding sidesaddle" on my weight bench when I do bicep curls?

Leenwebb: you are casting aspersions on my mindset or my motives based on my observable behavior. You don't get to define my behavior for me. I am the only one who can do that. If I want to tell an old joke, (or wear a short skirt in a dark alley at midnight, as Ewerbos brought up earlier in this derailed thread), my reasons are my own and it's not your place to put your own spin on the reasons for my observable behavior. Do it all you like, but I won't be party to it and if it bothers me enough, I'll happily go on pointing out the illogic.

(imagined) authority to define the terms and acceptable terminology

I do have the authority to insist on an acceptable definition for terms that I use in a debate. I'm surprised you don't understand. Those terms are not simple dictionary words, they're associated with feminist ideology, and no concise definition exists. It takes volumes to define "patriarchy" in the context in which it was used here. "Sexism", too, means whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment; in order to define the word concisely, you'd have to render it so banal and meaningless that it would be more sensible to just use the term "gender bigotry" or something similar. In fact, I'd challenge you to come up with a good, general-purpose definition for any "-ism" word. Fascism, sexism, patriotism, racism, nationalism, etc.; take your pick. These are all words that are defined by their users, in order to destroy debate.

Here is an exercise for you: google ten uses of the word "sexism" and try to come up with a definition that applies equally well to the context of each instance. I suspect that if you're totally honest, you'll come up with something along the lines of, "sexism means something that makes someone feel some degree of discomfort when faced with a vaguely gender-based concept."

If anyone is stifling debate its the person who dismisses another's concerns as meaningless

I didn't "dismiss anyone's concerns as meaningless", as you claim. In fact, I didn't address her "concerns" at all. I simply refused to be painted by a meaningless brush during an attempt to smear my character. That's anti-intellectualism of the most insidious sort. I'm surprised you are unable to make this distinction.

not to mention questioning the other person's sanity, which is, to be honest, pretty pathetic

I didn't question anyone's sanity. It would surprise me if you're unfamiliar with simple rhetoric; in fact, I think you're being anything but "honest", as you claim.

I used hyperbole to illustrate why Leenwebb's attempt at branding me a sociopath who acts "as if the women working out in a public space are there only for your sexual pleasure" can cut both ways. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, or are you, MJH, the sort that believes in double standards?

The original joke is sexist, because good girl/bad girl is about sex, right?

Not right. It's unhelpful to define sexism as "recognizing that sex exists", which is what you did here. Is it useful to assert that the moment someone thinks or acts in a way that's influenced by sex, they're "sexist"? Leenwebb brought up racism; do you think she'll be satisfied with you defining racism as "any action or thought that acknowledges the existence of race?"

If you examine the joke in the context of a serious discussion about how, traditionally among women, certain postures were seen as un-ladylike and "bad", and only adopted by "bad girls", it is no longer "sexist", according to your definition. It merely becomes a comment on the absurdity of traditional gender roles.

Out-of-context use of the word "sexism", and words like it, is a strategy developed by ideologues who want to stifle debate. Holding one's breath is an equally valid strategy.

Debate is fun and good; using strategies which shut down debate, either knowingly or because one is a dupe, is not fun or good.

[ewerbos]

Oh, man. I can only speak for myself; honestly, I wasn't saying your joke was horrid. It depends on context, but given that you're not likely to find many women who use the things here, you're not likely to find a woman who will find it applying to herself and feeling objectified--though leenwebb was apparently hurt by it, because she has had negative experiences in the gym (I have been lucky enough not to). From what she has related in other threads, the harassment she has been subject to has gone beyond jokes of that nature.

Seriously, you could say, "Oh, I thought the joke was funny, and I didn't intend anything bad by it, I hope you don't really think that I think that every woman's actions should be constantly interpreted in terms of how willing or able she is to have sex, I was just teasing girls a little, funny joke!" and I think it would be totally cool. She has a different context, you didn't know, you're not bad for making the joke, but it wouldn't hurt you any to be nice about it after.

(and middle-aged mom gyms: I go to a college gym, so no one middle-aged there of any kind)

[eLvarouza]

Note to self: don't comment about the machines in the gym again.