Is this an example of gender discrimination?
I try to go to the gym three times a week. It is one of those 24 hour companies and I find it convenient to go in the morning.
For the past month or so, they have been repairing the locker rooms. It is a bit of an inconvenience. There are fewer lockers available and fewer showers. The bathroom is not ready and you have to use a portapotty outside the back of the gym.
I was starting to wonder when the work would be complete, and I got an indication this morning. There were signs saying that the men’s and women’s locker rooms were switched. What this means is that the women did not have to go through any of this. No work was done on their room, and now that the work has been completed on the men’s room, the women can use it until the work is complete on their room.
Unfair! Why couldn’t both rooms have been repaired simultaneously? I know this does not rise to a really serious level, but try to imagine how the women would have reacted if the situation had been reversed.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
18 Answers
No. Ladies are always the least disadvantaged, and/or should be.
No
Only the oppressed can suffer discrimination
The oppressor can not be discriminated against
In this case, the males represent the oppressor and can not plead discrimination
Suck it up
There could be other reasons that you are just unaware of. Maybe it’s a safety issue. Maybe it’s a price issue. Maybe it’s the way the accommodations have been built and the men’s and women’s locker rooms are different, and the 2 locker rooms needed to switch. There’s no systematic, widespread discrimination based on centuries long prejudices at work. And anyway, it’s probably about $ and who brings in more profit.
What does this mean? “What this means is that the women did not have to go through any of this. No work was done on their room.”
Maybe you should change gyms to one that was completed BEFORE opening!!!
@Dutchess_lll , What I meant was that work was done first on the men’s locker room. When the work was completed, the women were moved to the completed men’s locker room and the men were moved to the women’s locker room, at which point renovatiion work was started on that room.
If I’m understanding correctly, the locker rooms are still in use while they’re being renovated. This means that constructions workers, most likely men, are in the space while it’s being used by gym members. Doesn’t it make sense that the male workers are among naked and semi-clad men, not women? This isn’t discrimination at all, but simply common sense and decency.
That makes good sense. Since the gym is available 24 hours, the workers have to work around the gym members that may be present.
I think there are much bigger things to worry about.
I suppose an argument can be made that the arrangement amounts to gender bias. There are nevertheless solid and obvious reasons beyond chivalry or tradition for treating women preferentially.
It’s a business, who will complain the most? That’s your answer.
BUT….what if some of those male construction workers are gay? Assuming the men from the gym knew the construction workers were gay, would they be as uncomfortable disrobing in front of them as women would be?
@Dutchess_III No, men who are secure in their sexuality are not uncomfortable disrobing in front of possibly gay workmen. And most gay men are not “checking out” straight men unless they are joking around and making an insecure straight man uncomfortable on purpose.
The fellow gym goer next to them is just as likely to be gay as the workmen.
Huh! I did not know that you guys didn’t care about your appearance in front of other men! Wait…what if many of the construction workers were women. Would that make a difference?
@Dutchess_III I am comfortable enough in my own skin that it would matter what the workers were like, man or women, gay or straight.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
