Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

No intimidation "gyms"

1…6791112…15

Replies

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    The thing PF conveniently fails to mention is that almost every gym has rules/a code of conduct that members are expected to abide by. While the dress codes are usually looser than PF's silly arbitrary rules, sexual harassment isn't tolerated in pretty much any gym, and most gyms will take action if somebody is being unnecessarily boisterous/obnoxious while lifting, throwing weights around, etc. - and they even somehow manage to do it without using a "lunk alarm" to publicly humiliate you in front of the entire gym.

    It's marketing material, not an objective analysis of the pros and cons of pf vs average gyms.

    Whew. Sure glad somebody came along and cleared that up. :D
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    If all anyone (other than the OP, who advocates telling people they're obese because they're lazy -- which I do think is relevant since it was the OP of this thread) is trying to say is that they don't like the PF advertising, I have no problem with that.

    No gyms are based around telling fat people they are lazy. That's as ridiculous as the PF advertising, and if OP were participating, I'd of course raise that with him. He got a lot of negative feedback already, and isn't around, so clearly this thread isn't about him anymore.

    I would have hoped you were right. But apparently you aren't.


    AnvilHead wrote: »
    And it looks like another gym beat me to the punch and did their own version of a PF parody ad:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBRG4RkE51Q


    I get that it's meant to be a parody, but I'm not sure what the actual message is supposed to be other than the impression that makes PF's non-intimidation ad campaign successful with a certain segment of the population: If you aren't already able to lift the amounts the folks in the ad are lifting, and you don't at least aspire to do so, you're not welcome here.


    I think if someone says something negative and divisive it can be useful to disagree, to point out where the person is drawing on stereotypes or making unfair generalizations, that they are talking about people they know -- like you and me -- and not some scary awful people not present. So that's basically what I'm doing here. I find it puzzling that you seem to be dug into saying that it's not appropriate to criticize the advertising, and that any comments about the problems with it or why we don't like it is met with mockery or the like. I suspected that was because you assumed that the PF fans who like the advertising for some reason should be treated with kid gloves, and I think you've acknowledged that. I think that's based on wrong assumptions, and that it even plays into the divisiveness. I think promoting the idea that there are scared fat people and everyone else, who are mean, is really not a sensible understanding of the world today (more people are fat) and not actually encouraging in that PF really isn't less intimidating or nicer than other gyms, it's cheap but lacks things that many people might actually like. So I'd hope people are not choosing to go there because they are told that at other gyms people will be mean and are dumb uncouth lunks.


    I would say that my perspective on this is strongly influenced by the OP -- I don't see how that can be ignored, even if the OP doesn't come back to defend it -- if someone wants to talk about something else, maybe there should be a new thread started, or comments addressing that side issue broken off.

    My perspective is also strongly influenced by my belief that the goal should be to eliminate an obstacle in the way of getting people who need a gym as a place to work out to feel comfortable going there. It would be nice if just having people who go to regular gyms say there's really nothing to be afraid of here. I have delivered that message a lot myself. But in dealing with real people in real life, I find that it is often more effective to accept their experiences and emotions as possibly having some basis in reality, and to say, "OK, but here's a way to solve the problem you're perceiving," whether that's exercise videos at home, walking while you lose weight and feel more comfortable doing something that looks like exercise in front of people, or going to exercise classes in a non-gym environment (e.g., a Pilates studio, a barre class, etc.).

    And I think promoting the idea that there are scared regular gym-goers who are being insulted and divided and fomented into some hate-fueled fitness war by ads depicting incredibly over-the-top behavior that the scared gym-goers mostly seem to say they don't ever engage in isn't all that helpful. Going to a gym isn't an innate characteristic; for the vast majority of people, I doubt it's part of some deeply held belief about religion or politics. Can't people disagree about what's the best gym atmosphere for themselves without it becoming yet another layer of the way we characterize each other and treat each other as "us and them"?

    I also think that if there are things you dislike that others think are okay, largely because they haven't thought about it, it's worth pointing out. For example, that lunk is really quite insulting, that saying people at other gyms are not clean, same.


    I agree with that. I don't identify myself or anyone I know and not even anyone I've ever seen in a gym in four decades as fitting these over the top characterizations in PF ad, so it's hard for me to see this as pinning an insulting label on real people. Those accounts by the prospective customers in the ads that have been posted are so over the top, that it seems to me like PF is parodying the ideas of their own prospective customers. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that they say people at other gyms are not clean. I must have missed something, or perhaps that is in other ads that people haven't posted.

    I believe your knee-jerk assumption that people who go to PF because they claim to be scared of the people at other gyms are victims who need to be coddled is why you seem to think that even pointing out these things is mean and that we should not, while people who claim to go to PF because of intimidation cannot possibly be morally responsible for what they say about others. This double-standard is not useful or accurate. Among other things, most of us have been fat and felt very uncomfortable about things and still may at times. IMO, the dividing people up into us and them hurts all of us in some ways (except perhaps for those making money off it or otherwise profiting).

    OK, this really confuses me. Ignoring your characterization of my responses as "knee-jerk," how does saying that people who go to PF are only "claiming" to be scared (I would say uncomfortable, but fine) fit with your goal of combatting divisiveness? Do you think these people are lying? That they don't even exist, and that PF is making up this who segment of the market because that would help them get customers ... how?

    And, OK, no double-standard. You are free to imply that people who say they feel intimidated are lying, and PF and the vocal PF supporters you describe are free to say that PF is all warm and cozy and that some of their potential customers tell them insane stories about their perceptions of other gyms.

    You are free to criticize PF for those commercials, and I am free to say that I think invalidating other people's experiences and emotions, even when they differ from mine, is something I'm not comfortable with, is something I try to avoid -- especially when they differ from mine, because I realize that's when I'm most vulnerable to falling into that behavior -- and is something I try to question when I see it, especially, as in this case, when I see a power imbalance. I think the fact that there are relatively few gyms that take the PF marketing approach and that in my experience, it is still not uncommon to see the free weights area dominated by guys and the occasional relatively heavy-lifting woman suggests such a power imbalance, if only in the minds of the people experiencing the feeling of intimidation.

    Thus, I think advertising that encourages divisiveness or relies on negative stereotypes about people should meet with social sanction, which again is the point of mentioning it. The defense that PF fans seem to make is "but it works." I don't think that's a good defense -- I think that news organizations should focus on news and not clickbait or the most sensational stuff, however non newsworthy, and the defense "well, it's profitable" is not adequate, they have a moral responsibility. Same with PF, and they are failing it. The best cure for bad speech is good speech, so I am stating my opinion, sorry that bothers you.

    No, I agree that the best cure for bad speech is good speech. I think in this case some of your speech is troublesome. I've tried to point out why I think that. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

    I have never run into these people you describe who go to PF and then run around claiming that all other gyms are full of mean people.

    I have, on MFP specifically. As for the ads, what AnvilHead said.

    Also, I don't think we've heard of an example of someone who was made to feel uncomfortable for being out of shape and overweight at other gyms and then had a good experience at PF. We had someone who apparently went to a gym where trainers are encouraged to solicit for clients (not likely they'd be mean in that case, but possibly annoying, it's trivially easy to understand the gyms where this happens and avoid them), and the same person asserted that PF was superior because she got hit on constantly elsewhere (which really doesn't sound like insecurity, quite the opposite), the example happened outside a gym, and in any event PF does not claim to protect people from being hit on.




    I believe that you are correct that we haven't heard from anyone saying that in this thread. But wouldn't that essentially be the message of the people that you have run into "on MFP, specifically" -- that they are claiming to have been uncomfortable at other gyms and that PF is really great because they don't feel that way there?

    The vast majority of comments about PF from people trashing other gyms are from people who do not claim to have had bad experiences at other gyms. They are like: "I'm glad I go here instead of some other gym because it's clean and people treat me well and don't pick on me, and the equipment is always available" -- this shows they have bought into the negative claims at other gyms.

    But wouldn't that imply that to some extent people did not treat them well or picked on them at other gyms, or at least that that was their perception? Wouldn't that be "bad experiences at other gyms?" Why can't their opinions be based on their own experiences?

    Anyway, I don't think it's that big a deal, I just think the ads are a minor negative factor and people buying into the ads are the same. I also think assuming that people who go to PF are in a power imbalance with others and therefore that we shouldn't criticize the advertising is a problematic take and that maybe you should think about whether you are too quick to judge who has power who does not, who may genuinely feel hurt, who may not (in my world being called stupid or dirty or socially uncouth would have been much more of an insult, including when I was fat, then noting I was fat, which I'd usually front), and especially whether these assumptions about power dynamics should color what should be a clear discussion of facts -- is PF's marketing approach divisive? Would it be better if they just focused on their actual pluses, like cheapness and hours, is the lunk alarm something that could make lots of people feel uncomfortable (including socially anxious fat people -- remember, I said I would be scared of accidentally dropping something and being humiliated)? If all this is still profitable for them, I'm sure they don't care, but I think they should be called out.

    I agree, I would be worried about accidentally dropping something and being humiliated, too. But again, that's my experience, not someone else's. Maybe they should just run the actual ad that AnvilHead posted, followed by their signature prospective customer saying, "And that's why I don't like gyms." Then the PF character could say, "We're an intimidation free zone."

    For what it's worth, if people said "yeah, the ads aren't great, but I go to the gym because it's convenience and cheap" I'd get it. But I got drawn into this because you and some others seemed to be annoyed or bothered that people thought the ads were objectionable, and that it should not be said because if some desire to protect the assumed to be delicate people who go to PF? I think that's a really troubling and wrong assumption in a lot of ways, if I am understanding your intent here correctly.

    I was drawn in because the OP said that we should stop mollycoddling out-of-shape people with intimidation-free gyms and just tell them that they're obese because they're lazy. There seemed to be a lot of objection in the thread to the idea of a gym marketing itself as an emotionally safe space to work out, and I think both free speech and free markets argue for allowing companies to choose any marketing approach that doesn't have demonstrable lies (as opposed to opinion and rhetorical puffery). And there also seemed to be a lot of questioning of the validity of anyone feeling that way about "regular" gyms and choosing to go somewhere they feel comfortable. Again, I haven't run into the PF fans that you have, so maybe there's something about the specific things they say and the way they say them that is offensive. I don't think they should be saying that "everybody" at other gyms are mean.
    Otherwise, if they're talking about their own experiences, I'm OK with them saying it.

    I think it's good that there are lots of options for different people to meet their exercise needs, even if some of them aren't places I would choose to go. I think it's fine and dandy for companies to use marketing to emphasize how they think their businesses are a good fit to meet the needs of some people. I find the PF YouTube ads -- at least the four that I've seen on this thread, which is the sum total of the ones of this type that I have seen -- to be such over-top-parody that I find it difficult to extremely difficult to imagine anyone identify with the caricatures in them, but if people do, I can understand their arguing that the ads are horrible.

    But your objections go beyond the ads to just people on MFP who like PF and say they are treated better there than they were at other gyms. If they are saying that it's "everybody" at "every" non-PF gym who is like that, that's wrong and should be called out -- preferably where they are posting, not in a different thread started by somebody who wants to tell obese people that they are lazy.

    But if "the vast majority of comments about PF from people trashing other gyms are from people ... [who] are like, 'I'm glad I go here instead of some other gym because it's clean and people treat me well and don't pick on me,[/b] and the equipment is always available'" (your words), that's just them explaining what they see as the good points of their gym compared it to "some other gym" (not all gyms). I'm glad I drive the car I drive because it's comfortable and reliable and gets reasonably good gas mileage and has good visibility with limited blind spots. Does that mean that I think every other car, most of which I haven't driven, are uncomfortable and unreliable and get bad mileage and have huge blind spots? Does it make you feel bad about driving the car you drive?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    canadjineh wrote: »
    I haven't actually seen any scary or intimidating scenarios in gyms... and I worked in the fitness and physical rehab industry for over 25 years. What I mainly think is the problem is no one wants to look stupid or clueless when they first go to a gym (even though nobody is really watching) so they might be more 'comfortable' choosing a place where it seems likely that the rest of the patrons may have the same level of knowledge, rather than a 'traditional gym' where it seems more likely the other patrons (may) know much more than they do. It's like having a running partner... it's just easier if you both run at the same speed. Slower people don't really want to be forced to run with a speedy partner, and the fast ones don't really want to run with slower runners, no matter what they might say to make that scenario feel better.
    carry on <3

    But to me, the bolded is still playing into PF's false (and stereotypical) narrative. Almost any gym has new/inexperienced/unfit patrons - it's not as if every gym but PF is full of jacked, tanned, physically perfect specimens who have worked out their entire lives and have iron running through their veins. The gym I go to has everything from scrawny teenagers to 90-year old senior citizens on walkers with oxygen tanks. I'd even go so far as to say that the unfit or "average" people outnumber the super-fit people by 4 or 5 to one.

    Yes - if you walk into a hardcore powerlifting or bodybuilding gym, you could expect to see a different demographic and feel a very different vibe to the place. The same could even be said of crossfit-type gyms. But most chain/"big box" gyms (which comprise the majority of gyms in most places) aren't going to be much, if at all, different than PF in terms of the people there.

    Maybe the answer is for other gyms that aren't powerlifting or bodybuilding gyms (which I assume is the demographic for the gym whose ad you ran that ended with a prospective customer being tossed into the snow because he didn't aspire to being jacked) to run ads saying we have appeal at all kinds of fitness levels, of all ages and genders and races and ethnicities, exercising here. You should feel comfortable here, and if you ever aren't, we'll do what we can to address that.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    cmoorecole wrote: »
    I have to tread carefully here. On the one hand, the idea of PF sounds great and I especially love that they will throw you out for wearing sexy workout clothes and treating the place as your singles pickup facility and that they toss out guys who make a lot of noise while lifting weights, etc, etc. That's just fun for me to read about. The price is cheap, blahdeeblah... However, when I joined I was faced with a huge room full of machines that I was clueless to use. My last adventure with an exercycle was an old Schwinn model that just had a manual mileage counter and some kind of adjustable tension...but no electronics at all. Nowadays, I find that people give me a blank stare if I ask about exercycles...they are no longer called that. I asked at the desk about getting some help and was told that they didn't help. You just were expected to know or bug another member, which is not my style. People are working out and you leave them alone.So much for the website promise of coaches working the floor. I went twice. I had been really jazzed about getting in there and sweating...oh and, all those TV monitors - you had to have an iphone to get sound. I use an Android. All in all, I left totally understanding why it's so cheap. So sad...I'll stick to hiking.

    I'll add that to the reasons (including an apparent pride in not having free weights bigger than dumbbells -- at least, that's my impression) not to join unless it's all I can afford.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited November 2018
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    I would have hoped you were right. But apparently you aren't.

    Because of someone making fun of the PF ad? I don't think that's a valid argument.
    I get that it's meant to be a parody, but I'm not sure what the actual message is supposed to be other than the impression that makes PF's non-intimidation ad campaign successful with a certain segment of the population: If you aren't already able to lift the amounts the folks in the ad are lifting, and you don't at least aspire to do so, you're not welcome here.

    The message seems to be "come here if you want to learn to do heavy lifting, not cardio." It is also not representing all gyms, but a small segment. You don't accidentally go to a gym like that.

    The ad isn't something I'd defend, but it's rather obviously responsive to the PF attacks on people who lift heavy.
    Me: I think if someone says something negative and divisive it can be useful to disagree, to point out where the person is drawing on stereotypes or making unfair generalizations, that they are talking about people they know -- like you and me -- and not some scary awful people not present. So that's basically what I'm doing here. I find it puzzling that you seem to be dug into saying that it's not appropriate to criticize the advertising, and that any comments about the problems with it or why we don't like it is met with mockery or the like. I suspected that was because you assumed that the PF fans who like the advertising for some reason should be treated with kid gloves, and I think you've acknowledged that. I think that's based on wrong assumptions, and that it even plays into the divisiveness. I think promoting the idea that there are scared fat people and everyone else, who are mean, is really not a sensible understanding of the world today (more people are fat) and not actually encouraging in that PF really isn't less intimidating or nicer than other gyms, it's cheap but lacks things that many people might actually like. So I'd hope people are not choosing to go there because they are told that at other gyms people will be mean and are dumb uncouth lunks.
    Lynn: I would say that my perspective on this is strongly influenced by the OP -- I don't see how that can be ignored, even if the OP doesn't come back to defend it -- if someone wants to talk about something else, maybe there should be a new thread started, or comments addressing that side issue broken off.

    This is one difference. I didn't remember the OP by the time this sub-conversation started. When the OP has not been a participant, the OP's comments make no sense, and no one is defending the OP, I don't see what sense it makes to be continually responding to the OP, rather than the people you ARE talking to.
    My perspective is also strongly influenced by my belief that the goal should be to eliminate an obstacle in the way of getting people who need a gym as a place to work out to feel comfortable going there.

    I agree with this. I don't think PF's ads support that goal, but are counterproductive too it, and also spread the idea that we should look down on people who are too serious about working out.

    I also think they encourage people to have an us vs. them view of the world, as noted before. I think that's a nasty attitude even if coming from someone you (for whatever reason) think deserves pity.
    It would be nice if just having people who go to regular gyms say there's really nothing to be afraid of here. I have delivered that message a lot myself.

    Me too. I also don't find that most people are that scared of regular gyms, they just want someone to explain what it's like, what the personality of a particular gym is, maybe to be there when they check it out, which I offer to do. I do not run into people who claim to have had traumatic experiences at regular gyms. Usually if they are nervous about going to a gym it's based on scenarios in their head (which I think PF ads and rules encourage) and not actual experiences.

    I've gone to gyms I felt more comfortable in than others, but the ones I felt uncomfortable in (and I think PF would be among them if I went) were more about my own desires and own feelings about the other people there and just that intangible "this is my crowd" vs. not, and not anyone being mean at a gym, which I don't really believe happens other than very rarely (and is as likely to happen in PF -- which has a very judgmental attitude from its ads and rules -- as elsewhere). And yes, I do have a very negative reaction to people who go to PF claiming their gym is better and nicer than other gyms, that other gyms are full of icky people. (I don't see them as "victims" (again, please), but people playing "us against them" and claiming to be better than others.)
    But in dealing with real people in real life, I find that it is often more effective to accept their experiences and emotions as possibly having some basis in reality, and to say, "OK, but here's a way to solve the problem you're perceiving," whether that's exercise videos at home, walking while you lose weight and feel more comfortable doing something that looks like exercise in front of people, or going to exercise classes in a non-gym environment (e.g., a Pilates studio, a barre class, etc.).

    Sure, but people are not saying "I actually went to this other gym and people were mean and called me fat." They are assuming -- without more -- that other gyms are scary and PF is different. That message comes 100% from PF's rules and ads. Now, does PF trashing other gyms and gym-goers allow them to portray themselves as different and therefore comfort those scared of all gyms? Maybe, but -- contrary to what you seem to be saying -- I do not think that makes it okay. It's still trumping up a fake problem (gyms are mean and intolerant and scary) in order to present themselves as a solution. They could ignore other gyms and talk about how warm and fuzzy they are, the social stuff, it's super cheap and you can come whenever, but they don't only do this because they can make more money the other, divisive way. That is IMO unethical or even immoral and so I will point it out. I think it's disgusting and I probably wouldn't join PF as a result even if I otherwise wanted to (but I admit to having options that are better anyway).
    And I think promoting the idea that there are scared regular gym-goers who are being insulted and divided and fomented into some hate-fueled fitness war by ads depicting incredibly over-the-top behavior that the scared gym-goers mostly seem to say they don't ever engage in isn't all that helpful.

    See -- maybe I'm wrong, but I perceive this comment as you saying that even if what I'm saying is true I should not say it, and you think you have a duty to tell us to shut up and mock us for saying it, not because it's actually untrue or mock-worthy, but because you think the truth is "unhelpful."

    IMO, pointing out the negative (and lying) aspects of the PF ads, and that people who fall for it are being foolish and falling into an us vs them where THEY and not other gym-goers are being the nasty ones IS helpful and more significantly true. And an important part of why that's true is that other gyms are not actually full of mean and scary people, or socially uncouth jerks -- that's a lie that PF tells. (And I do think it's significant that invariably every PF fan who buys into this line ALSO makes a big thing about other gyms, which they typically have not gone to, they are assuming, being less clean. My gym is very clean, thank you very much.)
    Going to a gym isn't an innate characteristic; for the vast majority of people, I doubt it's part of some deeply held belief about religion or politics. Can't people disagree about what's the best gym atmosphere for themselves without it becoming yet another layer of the way we characterize each other and treat each other as "us and them"?

    Of course, I like some gym environments more than others. The difference is, I don't post online about how my gym is superior and other gyms suck (which I've seen PF fans repeatedly do, and it echoes the ads when they do) and my gym does not advertise by trashing people who go to other gyms.

    I see no problem with preferring the atmosphere (or cost!) at a PF. I see a problem with the ads and people who echo the ads as if they are true in a way that is based on negative stereotypes about other people.
    I agree with that. I don't identify myself or anyone I know and not even anyone I've ever seen in a gym in four decades as fitting these over the top characterizations in PF ad, so it's hard for me to see this as pinning an insulting label on real people.

    I don't either, but I can see how people might, and more significantly I think the message that other gyms are bad places, avoid them, is a negative message that should be criticized.

    I also do see PF fans influenced by the ads who assert that they go to PF because it's nicer than all those other gyms, and isn't full of the bad people other gyms are, to be implicitly insulting those of us who go to other gyms and therefore are the people there. I think it's worth calling them on that, even if I'd try to do it nicely.
    I believe your knee-jerk assumption that people who go to PF because they claim to be scared of the people at other gyms are victims who need to be coddled is why you seem to think that even pointing out these things is mean and that we should not, while people who claim to go to PF because of intimidation cannot possibly be morally responsible for what they say about others. This double-standard is not useful or accurate. Among other things, most of us have been fat and felt very uncomfortable about things and still may at times. IMO, the dividing people up into us and them hurts all of us in some ways (except perhaps for those making money off it or otherwise profiting).
    OK, this really confuses me. Ignoring your characterization of my responses as "knee-jerk," how does saying that people who go to PF are only "claiming" to be scared (I would say uncomfortable, but fine) fit with your goal of combatting divisiveness? Do you think these people are lying? That they don't even exist, and that PF is making up this who segment of the market because that would help them get customers ... how?

    I usually say "claim" because we cannot know what the real reason is -- it's just a tick like saying alleged, and I do think it's important to keep in mind that we only have one side of things when people say stuff on MFP.

    That said, no, I agree that they are uncomfortable with going to a gym -- as probably many of us were at first, so your assumption that they are "victims" and entitled to be treated differently than others (who you have no problem with mocking -- I'm not referring to me but what I see in this conversation overall) is odd to me.

    My point is that I don't think the usual story is "I went to other gyms and they were full of people who made me feel really uncomfortable by calling me fatty or telling me to man up or dropping weights and so I checked out PF." They tend to be that they went first to PF and assume it's different (people are nicer, people don't do these awful things they supposedly do at other gyms). So I think for that subset of the PF population (who tend to tell that story on MFP) the ads and overall message at the gym is significant, and it's that other gyms and the people who go there are icky and bad.

    We did have one (one!) person who claimed to have gone to another gym and had a bad experience, but that experience was not similar to most other gyms (again, do research and you will know where trainers try to get clients actively on the floor), and had nothing to do with the stuff that PF claims to make itself different. (And the "some guy hit on me outside so other gyms are bad" did not strike me as relevant at all.)
    And, OK, no double-standard. You are free to imply that people who say they feel intimidated are lying, and PF and the vocal PF supporters you describe are free to say that PF is all warm and cozy and that some of their potential customers tell them insane stories about their perceptions of other gyms.

    I did not imply they were lying. But yes, we are all free to speak our opinions. You don't seem very interested in understanding other people's opinions here, but no reason you should be.

    My problem with the PF fans I've mentioned is that they buy into the PF line and say that other gyms are full of bad and icky people and therefore that PF is great for not having such people (I'm sure there are as many jerks who go to PF as any other gym, in reality). That is a rude, false statement about other gyms, and those of us that go there not based on actual experience, but buying into the us vs them message. If I negatively stereotyped all PF members (which I have not done), I am sure you would be the first to jump on me. Yet when PF fans do it (or PF itself does it), it's okay and should not be criticized in your mind, because those people are "victims" and there is an unequal power dynamic. I think that's straight up fiction, first of all -- there is no unequal power dynamic here. And, second, bad, rude behavior is bad, rude behavior whoever does it. PF's ads are bad, rude behavior that spreads an us vs them message and people repeating the underlying message of those ads as if true (that other gyms have mean, bad people that PF is thankfully free of) is also rude, bad behavior.
    No, I agree that the best cure for bad speech is good speech. I think in this case some of your speech is troublesome. I've tried to point out why I think that. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

    Other than the most recent tactic of pretending to think that I am "invalidating" experiences -- which is fantasy as I've not only acknowledged that people feel uncomfortable going to gyms for the first time but said I myself did (I think this is a very common experience, and I could not get myself to go until I felt like I really needed it, and had lost some weight, although I did do some weight stuff at home and I ran) -- it seems like the speech of mine you think is troubling is that I am criticizing PF's marketing approach for being based on stereotypes and encouraging us against them behavior because you are hell bent on this idea that I somehow am coming from a privileged power position and PF members are victims. That makes no sense at all.
    But wouldn't that essentially be the message of the people that you have run into "on MFP, specifically" -- that they are claiming to have been uncomfortable at other gyms and that PF is really great because they don't feel that way there?

    No, that's precisely my point. They don't say they had bad experiences with mean people at other gyms. They say that PF doesn't have those awful people they believe are at other gyms (based on the ads). Also, I quit a gym because I didn't like the dynamics -- I don't therefore assume all gyms other than the ones I've otherwise been a member of and liked suck (or even that they gym was a bad gym full of bad people just because I did not like the dynamics) and I certainly don't post about how my gym is superior because it has better people. That is not polite or reasonable behavior.
    But wouldn't that imply that to some extent people did not treat them well or picked on them at other gyms, or at least that that was their perception? Wouldn't that be "bad experiences at other gyms?" Why can't their opinions be based on their own experiences?

    No -- again, these are people whose first gym is PF. They assume those bad experiences would exist in other gyms, because of the PF message.
    I agree, I would be worried about accidentally dropping something and being humiliated, too. But again, that's my experience, not someone else's. Maybe they should just run the actual ad that AnvilHead posted, followed by their signature prospective customer saying, "And that's why I don't like gyms." Then the PF character could say, "We're an intimidation free zone."

    That would be dumb, since the gym whose ad AH ran obviously is not like most other gyms (and is also pushing an us against them message, even if defensively in this case -- many smaller hardcore gyms and CF gyms (I also was a member of a CF gym for a while) push negative us against them messages about gyms like mine, as well as about PF. To claim that is the only alternative to PF would be absurd, indeed, it would be yet another lie of the type PF likes to spread -- as you know as well as I, since presumably you go to a gym that is not exclusionary also.
    I was drawn in because the OP said that we should stop mollycoddling out-of-shape people with intimidation-free gyms and just tell them that they're obese because they're lazy.

    OP got lots of pushback and nobody seems to be arguing his point now. I certainly was not.
    There seemed to be a lot of objection in the thread to the idea of a gym marketing itself as an emotionally safe space to work out, and I think both free speech and free markets argue for allowing companies to choose any marketing approach that doesn't have demonstrable lies (as opposed to opinion and rhetorical puffery).

    No one is saying the ads should be banned -- where would you get that? That's absurd.

    I am saying that just because an ad is legal doesn't make it right, and free speech depends on the idea that we should be free to criticize things as a better option to banning it. Sometimes people seem to think that you should never criticize any idea, since it's mean and someone might get their feelings hurt, and that seemed to me to be where you were coming from here. You wanted the fact the ads are legal to be the end of the story and those of us who think they are nasty and divisive and actually counterproductive (they increase the feelings of discomfort or fear about gyms in general in order to line PF's pockets) to shut up.
    And there also seemed to be a lot of questioning of the validity of anyone feeling that way about "regular" gyms and choosing to go somewhere they feel comfortable.

    I think thinking that PF is actually "nicer" than most other gyms is irrational and absurd, yeah. But if someone goes there and doesn't trash other gyms (a message that PF seems to promote given how often I see it), I won't question why they go there. I like a specific atmosphere (and location) in a gym so I'm sure I choose a gym that others would think was silly -- I know from posts on MFP that many would indeed disapprove of my choice, since I spend more than I need to.
    But your objections go beyond the ads to just people on MFP who like PF and say they are treated better there than they were at other gyms.

    No, again, they are ASSUMING that they would be treated badly at other gyms (and those gyms would not be clean) in the posts I am talking about. They aren't saying "I was going nuts because of all the dropped weights" (although there are actually good reasons that weights get dropped in some cases) or "people at other gyms were saying 'toughen up, fatty!'" (which again does not happen). They were saying they assumed other gyms would be unlike PF in ways they are not.

    Also, again, you can have a bad experience at a gym and then find one you like and not go around claiming your current gym is somehow superior to all other gyms in a ridiculous and absurd way.
    If they are saying that it's "everybody" at "every" non-PF gym who is like that, that's wrong and should be called out -- preferably where they are posting, not in a different thread started by somebody who wants to tell obese people that they are lazy.

    The reason I brought it up is because you and others were suggesting the message of the ads was not significant. I think it is -- it is causing people to assume that other gyms are full of scary bad people and PF is the only place they won't be made (intentionally) to feel uncomfortable. (I think OP played into this, which is one reason why what he said was wrong and I would have argued with him were he here. But I do think PF is also spreading a bad message and should be called out for it.)
    I'm glad I drive the car I drive because it's comfortable and reliable and gets reasonably good gas mileage and has good visibility with limited blind spots. Does that mean that I think every other car, most of which I haven't driven, are uncomfortable and unreliable and get bad mileage and have huge blind spots? Does it make you feel bad about driving the car you drive?

    This is really, really obviously not analogous to what I am saying.

    I love my gym. I'm glad I go there vs the other options (numerous, I live in a large city). It is for me a really good choice. I do not think it is the best choice for everyone, and I think there are probably other gyms I would be as happy with (well, but for location, mine is perfect). But I do not assume that all other gyms are full of bad, icky people who would be mean to me, and -- even more significantly -- I don't assert that my gym is better than all other gyms due to the lack of those terrible people who infect other gyms (which are for some reason not clean, why do all PF fans seem to assume it's worth noting that their gyms are clean? do they assume other gyms are filthy?) -- only PF fans do that. (CFers used to, but I don't see that much anymore.)
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    lizmcvey wrote: »
    I have a planet fitness membership, how i use it has evolved throughout the years, there have been times when it's the only workout i do, in this current season of life, i use it to supplement Orange Theory and running. A lot of these comments are unfair. I see people working really hard there. Often the same people running hard on the treads, lifting heavy (even if on a machine which you believe is lesser than). I'll never look down on someone for putting in work. My 76 year old grandmother and her neighbor go to planet fitness together several times a week. The doesn't have the funds to pay more than $10 a month, she could just say oh well and sit on the couch but instead she's in better shape than I think I've ever known her to be in. If all of that is not good enough for you, I feel bad that you lead such an elite life you can't even see that we "normal" folks can find benefits from low cost gyms.

    I believe most commentators on here realize that there are people that work hard and make significant progress at PF. I personally know several.

    People are taking issue with the advertising that implies all other gyms are full of "mean people" and PF is the only safe place out there.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    lizmcvey wrote: »
    I have a planet fitness membership, how i use it has evolved throughout the years, there have been times when it's the only workout i do, in this current season of life, i use it to supplement Orange Theory and running. A lot of these comments are unfair. I see people working really hard there. Often the same people running hard on the treads, lifting heavy (even if on a machine which you believe is lesser than). I'll never look down on someone for putting in work. My 76 year old grandmother and her neighbor go to planet fitness together several times a week. The doesn't have the funds to pay more than $10 a month, she could just say oh well and sit on the couch but instead she's in better shape than I think I've ever known her to be in. If all of that is not good enough for you, I feel bad that you lead such an elite life you can't even see that we "normal" folks can find benefits from low cost gyms.

    Not sure where in this thread you've gotten the idea that anybody thinks PF members don't work hard, or looks down upon anybody putting in work. That's not the point and never has been. And a lot of the people responding in this thread are "normal" folks.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited November 2018
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    cmoorecole wrote: »
    I have to tread carefully here. On the one hand, the idea of PF sounds great and I especially love that they will throw you out for wearing sexy workout clothes and treating the place as your singles pickup facility and that they toss out guys who make a lot of noise while lifting weights, etc, etc.

    I guess I don't understand why it would be a plus if a gym threw people out for wearing "sexy workout clothes," given that is a pretty vague term. If PF asks someone to leave because their clothes are "perceived as . . . revealing" (the language on their website), how does that improve my workout experience (as a member of that gym) in any way?
    That's more of their stereotyping - that fit people are narcissistic exhibitionists who only come to the gym to show their bodies off and be as nearly naked as possible to 'intimidate' other people. It's more of the "safe spaces" thing - that if you don't have to look at fit bodies, you won't feel as bad about yourself.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    cmoorecole wrote: »
    I have to tread carefully here. On the one hand, the idea of PF sounds great and I especially love that they will throw you out for wearing sexy workout clothes and treating the place as your singles pickup facility and that they toss out guys who make a lot of noise while lifting weights, etc, etc.

    I guess I don't understand why it would be a plus if a gym threw people out for wearing "sexy workout clothes," given that is a pretty vague term. If PF asks someone to leave because their clothes are "perceived as . . . revealing" (the language on their website), how does that improve my workout experience (as a member of that gym) in any way?

    It is important to shame sluts. Or so that's my take on the policy, which I think is pretty nasty.

    Yeah, I get that message too. I go to a regular chain gym, and their dress code is basically "dress appropriately". I haven't seen any shirtless guys and very few women in sports bras (which I assume would be a problem at PF but is fine at my gym). I have seen a few people in street clothes using the cardio equipment very slowly, and certainly nobody's doing the opposite of PF and shaming them for being over-dressed.

    I had missed that bit of the commercials in the midst of the "no intimidation" discussion.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Yeah, I get that message too. I go to a regular chain gym, and their dress code is basically "dress appropriately". I haven't seen any shirtless guys and very few women in sports bras (which I assume would be a problem at PF but is fine at my gym).

    I had missed that bit of the commercials in the midst of the "no intimidation" discussion.
    In about 99% of gyms, shirtless guys would quickly be told to become un-shirtless. That's certainly not unique to PF in any way. As far as women, I also see very few in sports bras in the gym - I mean, they may be wearing them, but they're covered by tank tops/t-shirts.

    I go to Anytime Fitness. The only rule I've ever seen is no jeans or other clothes with external metal parts/rigid seams, because of the potential for damaging the upholstery on the benches/equipment. Pretty common sense rule, which I don't have any problem with. According to their corporate blog, they have a pretty casual and accommodating view of what is acceptable workout attire: http://blog.anytimefitness.com/really-dont-dress-gym/


    mph323 wrote: »
    I have seen a few people in street clothes using the cardio equipment very slowly, and certainly nobody's doing the opposite of PF and shaming them for being over-dressed.
    We have a couple senior citizens at my gym who work out (both weights and cardio) in slacks/khakis and button-front shirts. Both are well into their late 70s/early 80s, so I (silently) applaud them for being there rather than looking askew at their wardrobe choices. Another old guy (easily in his late 80s at a minimum) wears leggings/yoga pants - sometimes in bright pink. I've never seen any of the above people ridiculed or even commented on in the gym.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    I hate just copying and pasting parts, which could take things out of context, but we've created a monstrous wall of text and I'm not sure I could even find the few parts I want to respond to if I quoted the whole thing.
    And I think promoting the idea that there are scared regular gym-goers who are being insulted and divided and fomented into some hate-fueled fitness war by ads depicting incredibly over-the-top behavior that the scared gym-goers mostly seem to say they don't ever engage in isn't all that helpful.

    See -- maybe I'm wrong, but I perceive this comment as you saying that even if what I'm saying is true I should not say it, and you think you have a duty to tell us to shut up and mock us for saying it, not because it's actually untrue or mock-worthy, but because you think the truth is "unhelpful."

    So, you think it's bad that PF runs ads that you see as spreading (or even inventing) an unhelpful belief that gyms are scary (BTW, I met lots of people who were uncomfortable about going to gyms long before PF existed -- yes, I'm that old), and you think you are ethically bound to criticize them. But it's somehow off the rails for me to suggest that you are spreading or creating the unhelpful belief that that there is a division and hostility between patrons of two different gyms akin to the deepest political divides evident today. And no, I don't concede that the picture you are painting is true.


    ***

    Quoting this part because the quote-embedding got messed up in your post, and makes it look like I said something you actually said, and I do not wish to be associated with:
    [lemurcat2 said]
    I believe your knee-jerk assumption that people who go to PF because they claim to be scared of the people at other gyms are victims who need to be coddled is why you seem to think that even pointing out these things is mean and that we should not, while people who claim to go to PF because of intimidation cannot possibly be morally responsible for what they say about others. This double-standard is not useful or accurate. Among other things, most of us have been fat and felt very uncomfortable about things and still may at times. IMO, the dividing people up into us and them hurts all of us in some ways (except perhaps for those making money off it or otherwise profiting).

    [lynn_glenmont said]
    OK, this really confuses me. Ignoring your characterization of my responses as "knee-jerk," how does saying that people who go to PF are only "claiming" to be scared (I would say uncomfortable, but fine) fit with your goal of combatting divisiveness? Do you think these people are lying? That they don't even exist, and that PF is making up this who segment of the market because that would help them get customers ... how?

    [lemurcat2 said]
    I usually say "claim" because we cannot know what the real reason is -- it's just a tick like saying alleged, and I do think it's important to keep in mind that we only have one side of things when people say stuff on MFP.

    OK, if that's your standard, I guess I'm free to doubt your claims about being offended by the PF ads. Yeesh, if people are subject to having their assertions of their own feelings doubted on a routine basis, I don't see how it's possible to have discussions about them.

    ****

    As a more general point, you assert that there's no point in discussing the actual topic raised in the OP because the OP hasn't come back to defend it, yet you insist on discussing your claims (yes, I'm making a point with that word) about people you say you keep running into on MFP who are PF customers who trash-talk other gyms that they have never been to. They aren't on this thread -- which strikes me as curious, given that you insist they're running around carrying the PF message with evangelical fervor -- so why do you insist on talking about them?

    ****
    Other than the most recent tactic of pretending to think that I am "invalidating" experiences -- which is fantasy as I've not only acknowledged that people feel uncomfortable going to gyms for the first time but said I myself did (I think this is a very common experience, and I could not get myself to go until I felt like I really needed it, and had lost some weight, although I did do some weight stuff at home and I ran) -- it seems like the speech of mine you think is troubling is that I am criticizing PF's marketing approach for being based on stereotypes and encouraging us against them behavior because you are hell bent on this idea that I somehow am coming from a privileged power position and PF members are victims. That makes no sense at all.

    I said nothing about you. I have never assumed that you are part of the perceived problem by people who have had bad experiences in "regular" gyms (which you do repeatedly insist aren't really all that bad, because no one was calling them "fatty" or telling them to "man up" or doing anything else you would consider egregious -- but it's for each individual to decide whether a place that they would have to pay to go, for heaven's sake, is a place they feel comfortable).
    But wouldn't that essentially be the message of the people that you have run into "on MFP, specifically" -- that they are claiming to have been uncomfortable at other gyms and that PF is really great because they don't feel that way there?


    No, that's precisely my point. They don't say they had bad experiences with mean people at other gyms. They say that PF doesn't have those awful people they believe are at other gyms (based on the ads).

    And you know for a fact that all these people had never been to another gym? They tell you that they only believe that they would be uncomfortable at some other gyms because PF told them so? (I'm sorry, but that seems extremely unlikely to me.)
    I am saying that just because an ad is legal doesn't make it right, and free speech depends on the idea that we should be free to criticize things as a better option to banning it. Sometimes people seem to think that you should never criticize any idea, since it's mean and someone might get their feelings hurt, and that seemed to me to be where you were coming from here. You wanted the fact the ads are legal to be the end of the story and those of us who think they are nasty and divisive and actually counterproductive (they increase the feelings of discomfort or fear about gyms in general in order to line PF's pockets) to shut up.

    I haven't told anyone to shut up. I've disagreed with your assessment of PF ads (more so in the beginning, because I was unfamiliar with all these YouTube ads, having only seen TV and print ads for PF in RL). I think the one where the woman gets raised up into a competition space that she has no interest in is kind of funny. I think the characterizations of two of the potential heavy-lifting customers as preposterously mono-focused and stupid is rude and bad (in the moral sense). I forget the content of the third one. I think the general message -- "If you've had experiences that left you feeling this way about gyms, come here. Our aim is to provide a different atmosphere." -- is not a bad thing if the goal is to get more people exercising. Disagreeing with you is not telling you to shut up.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    ...and from having been a member of about 20 different gyms over the past 40 years and not ever even once having seen any "scary" or "intimidating" scenario take place in any one of them, this is about how the soundtrack plays in my head when somebody says they're afraid of going into a gym (I've already admitted I'm not the sensitive, touchy-feely type):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APwfZYO1di4

    It's interesting that the PF ads shown don't have any obviously overweight/obese people as the main character or using the equipment in the background while the victim of gym-intimidation tells their story to the PF rep.

    If you go in my mean, intimidating gym any time of the day you will see overweight/obese people going about their business and not being bothered. Are we to infer from the lack of people that represent 70% of the US population in their ads PF doesn't want these people in their unicorns and rainbows world?

    Sure, that's a reasonable criticism (although I suspect it's more likely that while they're happy to take the money from people who are unfit, they don't want people who are in denial about how unfit they are to see overweight/obese people in the commercial and think "oh, that place is only for fat people, and I'm not fat"). But they certainly run the risk of those who aren't in denial looking at the ads and saying, "oh, I wouldn't feel comfortable there either. People would still be judging me."

    I realize you probably were being sarcastic, but that's at least as valid a criticism as the idea that PF invented the idea that there are people who are uncomfortable about going to gyms.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    cmoorecole wrote: »
    I have to tread carefully here. On the one hand, the idea of PF sounds great and I especially love that they will throw you out for wearing sexy workout clothes and treating the place as your singles pickup facility and that they toss out guys who make a lot of noise while lifting weights, etc, etc.

    I guess I don't understand why it would be a plus if a gym threw people out for wearing "sexy workout clothes," given that is a pretty vague term. If PF asks someone to leave because their clothes are "perceived as . . . revealing" (the language on their website), how does that improve my workout experience (as a member of that gym) in any way?

    Yeah, their actual rules (or at least what they were a few years back when I looked them up when there was a thread about the actual rules) seem to have a lot of bizarre stuff in. Sometimes the most sensible clothes for an activity (e.g., snug fitting so loose clothing doesn't get caught on equipment) might be construed as revealing (if "revealing" includes body contour as well as actual skin) -- or comfortable clothes temperature-wise in a warm gym is likely to leave some bare skin.

    I believe I recall some PF restriction on the allowable size of water containers you can bring into the gym, apparently because there's some belief that intimidating heavy-lifting folk like to carry their water around in gallon containers. I don't recall having seen this since fear of being underhydrated has led to practically everyone carrying around 16 to 20 oz containers of water practically everywhere they go. Even before that, I don't remember it being at all common to carry gallon-containers of water into gyms. I think I maybe saw a few guys do this, and I just figured it was practicality -- they bought their milk in gallon containers and then refilled them with water because those were the most readily available, cheapest reclosable food-safe containers they had to hand.

  • newmeadow
    newmeadow Posts: 1,295 Member
    edited November 2018
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?

    I think lunks and fat people who eat Pringles in bed and take the elevator to go up one floor usually get along pretty well.

    I worked with this lunk who was very good natured and loved to tell dirty stories to large groups of people with no fear of repercussion.

    He had a little crush on me even though I'm fat and out of breath and he asked to be my partner in our yearly mandatory diversity class when we had to do the role playing.

    He used to ask to do CPR on me and he would call me at all hours and sing Rhianna songs on my voicemail and change the lyrics so they were more titillating.

    Then he quit to go work in a vitamin store and I really miss him.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    OP's post makes no sense, since he seems to assume that "not intimidating" means "no actual exercising gets done." I've been involved in various group training program (including for a half ironman) and a member of various gyms, and none were intimidating, and yet people worked hard. I don't see why intimidation = working harder, vs. discouraging people from thinking they can exercise too.

    Even the gyms focused on heavy lifting don't seem to sell themselves as "intimidating." I got a groupon for DEXA at a local powerlifting focused gym and the people there were all about how they liked to see new people and beginners were of course welcome, people were at all different levels. I didn't join since it's not convenient and I like my gym. Same when I did an olympic lifting class for a while (where you would sometimes drop weights) -- people were actually very friendly and excited to see other people interested in an activity they liked.

Categories