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"
Replies
-
So now no one gets hit on at PF, and women are constantly hit on at other gyms? Not my experience (seems like really serious gyms and your typical corporate gym where most people are busy professionals trying to get a workout in before getting to/back to work/going home would be at least as good on that front -- the culture in my gym is quite "do your thing" and not meat markety at all), and I don't know why PF would be free from that. Sounds more like something a women's gym would address (I have no interest in that, but I could at least see why that argument would be made).
Could you point me in the the directon of one of these gyms in the New England area?
3 -
curlsintherack wrote: »I couldn't do something like PF simply because I take inspiration from people stronger, faster, or more fit than me. I have headphones in I don't care if you grunt, yel, or talk to yourself because I can't hear you.
I saw this guy at PF who might have been stronger and faster than you. He uses the tanning beds, lifts the weights while looking in the mirror and generally shows up between 12:30 am and 1:30 am.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Odd_Equestrian wrote: »As someone who has severe social anxiety and body dysmorphia, places like PF are great...I could go there and not be afraid of anyone or be eaten up by a trainer looking to make a buck. I just got in at 10 pm when no one was there, kept my head down, and basically ran out after an hour every time I went. The cost was also nice in college because I could actually afford it. I no longer go just because I graduated and got a job and now we have our own equipment at home so I don't have to go out at all.
If you are looking for a certain atmosphere, I would say just go find a more serious gym...I don't get why it is labeled as"BS"
Because your claim that the alternatives are PF or "being afraid of [people who will bother you]" and "be[ing] eaten up by a trainer looking to make a buck", while consistent with PF marketing claims, perhaps, is not the reality. I have been a member of four separate gyms (two of them had multiple locations and I've been to different locations), and also visited a number of others. Absolutely none of them had people who would go up and bother you (some people might try to be friendly, but weren't pushy, and I'm sure PF is not particularly different -- no one was obnoxious or critical). They also did not have trainers coming and bothering you. When you joined you'd get an option to try a free session with a trainer, and if you didn't want it you didn't take it. Trainers did not come bug you or beg for employment.
This is why I find the assertions by PF and the buy-in by its fans to be worth countering. People who go to other gyms don't constantly make unprovoked slams on every other gym, and this is why PF's marketing and silly lunk alarm and "us against them" approach gets flak.
No, but apparently some folks who go to other gyms feel entitled to tell people who prefer PF and other "nonintimidation" gyms that how they feel is nonsense and that things they may have actually experienced (because it's BS to claim that you know that every single nonintimidation gym is always a completely welcoming place with no jerks saying or doing anything stupid or offensive) didn't really happen. Frankly, if I were somebody inclined to anxieties about "regular" gyms, having a bunch of people who go to those gyms telling me that my anxieties are completely not based in reality and that any experiences I had had that fed those anxieties were irrelevant or wrongly interpreted or my imagination would actually be a really good reason not to know. Because who needs to pay good money every month to be gas-lighted.
TL;DR: My experiences generally mirror yours, but your four gyms and my seven gyms aren't all gyms. Our experiences are not everyone's experiences. Our feelings are not everyone's feelings.
Because PF runs a national advertising campaign saying there's no gym intimidation doe that means it has to be true? Hint, most advertising has a fair bit of exaggeration if not outright lying in it. The intimidation is coming from the perspective of the individual. If they've managed to BS enough people to whom it matters that PF is a "safe place" and not just a low cost gym the ad agency has done their job.
Because you haven't felt uncomfortable in a "regular" gym, does that mean that no one else could?
Why is it not better that people are finding a place to work out that, for whatever reason, they feel comfortable in? If you don't like somebody's marketing, don't buy their product or service.
Totally vegetarian products that advertise that they are cholesterol free annoy me, and I think they appeal to irrational food fears, but I don't go around arguing they shouldn't be allow to make those claims.
Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?2 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?14 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?14 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
How is it acceptable either way? It really shouldn't be.13 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Yeah, this rant is what's called, 'crocodile tears'.
That's also why the OP's vent is so ridiculous. Mocking overly politically correct culture, while simultaneously crying that fit people are being made fun of....12 -
What interests me is how those (on this thread)who feel intimidated by some gyms, are told (by some) that they are imagining things that never really happen, the implication (as I see it) being that they should get over this, yet feeling offended by an advertising ploy is somehow more justifiable.6
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Odd_Equestrian wrote: »As someone who has severe social anxiety and body dysmorphia, places like PF are great...I could go there and not be afraid of anyone or be eaten up by a trainer looking to make a buck. I just got in at 10 pm when no one was there, kept my head down, and basically ran out after an hour every time I went. The cost was also nice in college because I could actually afford it. I no longer go just because I graduated and got a job and now we have our own equipment at home so I don't have to go out at all.
If you are looking for a certain atmosphere, I would say just go find a more serious gym...I don't get why it is labeled as"BS"
Because your claim that the alternatives are PF or "being afraid of [people who will bother you]" and "be[ing] eaten up by a trainer looking to make a buck", while consistent with PF marketing claims, perhaps, is not the reality. I have been a member of four separate gyms (two of them had multiple locations and I've been to different locations), and also visited a number of others. Absolutely none of them had people who would go up and bother you (some people might try to be friendly, but weren't pushy, and I'm sure PF is not particularly different -- no one was obnoxious or critical). They also did not have trainers coming and bothering you. When you joined you'd get an option to try a free session with a trainer, and if you didn't want it you didn't take it. Trainers did not come bug you or beg for employment.
This is why I find the assertions by PF and the buy-in by its fans to be worth countering. People who go to other gyms don't constantly make unprovoked slams on every other gym, and this is why PF's marketing and silly lunk alarm and "us against them" approach gets flak.
No, but apparently some folks who go to other gyms feel entitled to tell people who prefer PF and other "nonintimidation" gyms that how they feel is nonsense and that things they may have actually experienced (because it's BS to claim that you know that every single nonintimidation gym is always a completely welcoming place with no jerks saying or doing anything stupid or offensive) didn't really happen. Frankly, if I were somebody inclined to anxieties about "regular" gyms, having a bunch of people who go to those gyms telling me that my anxieties are completely not based in reality and that any experiences I had had that fed those anxieties were irrelevant or wrongly interpreted or my imagination would actually be a really good reason not to know. Because who needs to pay good money every month to be gas-lighted.
TL;DR: My experiences generally mirror yours, but your four gyms and my seven gyms aren't all gyms. Our experiences are not everyone's experiences. Our feelings are not everyone's feelings.
Because PF runs a national advertising campaign saying there's no gym intimidation doe that means it has to be true? Hint, most advertising has a fair bit of exaggeration if not outright lying in it. The intimidation is coming from the perspective of the individual. If they've managed to BS enough people to whom it matters that PF is a "safe place" and not just a low cost gym the ad agency has done their job.
Because you haven't felt uncomfortable in a "regular" gym, does that mean that no one else could?
Why is it not better that people are finding a place to work out that, for whatever reason, they feel comfortable in? If you don't like somebody's marketing, don't buy their product or service.
Totally vegetarian products that advertise that they are cholesterol free annoy me, and I think they appeal to irrational food fears, but I don't go around arguing they shouldn't be allow to make those claims.
Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
If you read my post you will notice I said just because it's advertised as no intimidation, doesn't mean it's true (or truer than any other gym). They just picked up the tag line. It's advertising fluff, banking on the idea they can reel in people. To be honest, I would say most of the people that sign up for PF because of the no intimidation advertising have such social anxiety issues that they may go once or twice and never go back because of their issues. The vast majority of people are there because it meets the criteria of: has what they need equipment wise, cheap, convenient, etc
In your food example, there is a definition, lab tested, that shows a product to be cholesterol free and hence advertised that way. There is no definition of no intimidation. It's in the eye of the beholder.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
How is it acceptable either way? It really shouldn't be.
I think one of the biggest problems in the US right now is how much we are divided and angry at each other (honestly, I often find myself wondering "why do they hate us," heh). Given this real danger (and I think it is a danger), advertising that seems based in "all those other gyms are full of people who are terrible and would be mean to you, and it's best that you fear and dislike them" seems to me extremely unethical, even immoral.
That it works doesn't change that.
And no, I don't think bad about people who go to PF, like I keep saying, it's cheap and has great hours.3 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »What interests me is how those (on this thread)who feel intimidated by some gyms, are told (by some) that they are imagining things that never really happen, the implication (as I see it) being that they should get over this, yet feeling offended by an advertising ploy is somehow more justifiable.
Nothing has been said to suggest that the things the person (I think there was one) complained about at ONE other gym was less likely to happen at PF or more likely to happen at other gyms.
Her issue was being hit on. PF doesn't advertise that you can't hit on people.
She also claimed that trainers wouldn't leave her alone. If you do minimal research, that's related to a business model that a few gyms use, but hardly all others, or even most. Generalizing to PF is better than all other gyms for these reasons is not rational and just not true. That poster asserted that her gym was better than all other gyms and made a false assertion about what was going on typically at other gyms. No one has said that irritating things don't happen at gyms (including PF) -- irritating things happen everywhere. I will not bore you with my "people behaving badly on the L" stories.
And to reiterate: we didn't say she was imagining being hit on. (I don't know if she was or not, but people do get hit on. It's not related to going to non PF gyms, however. In her own story it wasn't even at a gym by while she was on her way there.)1 -
And no, I don't think bad about people who go to PF, like I keep saying, it's cheap and has great hours.
Beyond the cheap and hours, I do think it is designed and marketed for a certain type of person who won't feel comfortable in a "regular" gym. People who are more cardio or circuit focused and not into heavy lifting. And there is nothing wrong with that. Hell, even the social aspect (I assume the pizza time is social) is something my gym doesn't have and I'm sure lots of people appreciate. But my gym has squat racks.
It fits a niche, and that's all well and good. They just don't need to ridicule those who are not in that niche. Yeah, it's just like politics (and that's gone beyond the US).
4 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »What interests me is how those (on this thread)who feel intimidated by some gyms, are told (by some) that they are imagining things that never really happen, the implication (as I see it) being that they should get over this, yet feeling offended by an advertising ploy is somehow more justifiable.
Nothing has been said to suggest that the things the person (I think there was one) complained about at ONE other gym was less likely to happen at PF or more likely to happen at other gyms.
Her issue was being hit on. PF doesn't advertise that you can't hit on people.
She also claimed that trainers wouldn't leave her alone. If you do minimal research, that's related to a business model that a few gyms use, but hardly all others, or even most. Generalizing to PF is better than all other gyms for these reasons is not rational and just not true. That poster asserted that her gym was better than all other gyms and made a false assertion about what was going on typically at other gyms. No one has said that irritating things don't happen at gyms (including PF) -- irritating things happen everywhere. I will not bore you with my "people behaving badly on the L" stories.
And to reiterate: we didn't say she was imagining being hit on. (I don't know if she was or not, but people do get hit on. It's not related to going to non PF gyms, however. In her own story it wasn't even at a gym by while she was on her way there.)
In 40 years of going to gyms all over the US and several in Europe I have never had a trainer try to sell their services to me or observe one trying to do so to someone else.
I guess it happens but personally never seen it2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »What interests me is how those (on this thread)who feel intimidated by some gyms, are told (by some) that they are imagining things that never really happen, the implication (as I see it) being that they should get over this, yet feeling offended by an advertising ploy is somehow more justifiable.
Nothing has been said to suggest that the things the person (I think there was one) complained about at ONE other gym was less likely to happen at PF or more likely to happen at other gyms.
Her issue was being hit on. PF doesn't advertise that you can't hit on people.
She also claimed that trainers wouldn't leave her alone. If you do minimal research, that's related to a business model that a few gyms use, but hardly all others, or even most. Generalizing to PF is better than all other gyms for these reasons is not rational and just not true. That poster asserted that her gym was better than all other gyms and made a false assertion about what was going on typically at other gyms. No one has said that irritating things don't happen at gyms (including PF) -- irritating things happen everywhere. I will not bore you with my "people behaving badly on the L" stories.
And to reiterate: we didn't say she was imagining being hit on. (I don't know if she was or not, but people do get hit on. It's not related to going to non PF gyms, however. In her own story it wasn't even at a gym by while she was on her way there.)
In 40 years of going to gyms all over the US and several in Europe I have never had a trainer try to sell their services to me or observe one trying to do so to someone else.
I guess it happens but personally never seen it
I have. At a couple of different gyms. It was a little uncomfortable but I was easily able to deflect it. Not really anything more than anywhere else someone tries to sell you something. Just part of life.2 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »What interests me is how those (on this thread)who feel intimidated by some gyms, are told (by some) that they are imagining things that never really happen, the implication (as I see it) being that they should get over this, yet feeling offended by an advertising ploy is somehow more justifiable.
Nothing has been said to suggest that the things the person (I think there was one) complained about at ONE other gym was less likely to happen at PF or more likely to happen at other gyms.
Her issue was being hit on. PF doesn't advertise that you can't hit on people.
She also claimed that trainers wouldn't leave her alone. If you do minimal research, that's related to a business model that a few gyms use, but hardly all others, or even most. Generalizing to PF is better than all other gyms for these reasons is not rational and just not true. That poster asserted that her gym was better than all other gyms and made a false assertion about what was going on typically at other gyms. No one has said that irritating things don't happen at gyms (including PF) -- irritating things happen everywhere. I will not bore you with my "people behaving badly on the L" stories.
And to reiterate: we didn't say she was imagining being hit on. (I don't know if she was or not, but people do get hit on. It's not related to going to non PF gyms, however. In her own story it wasn't even at a gym by while she was on her way there.)
I wasn't referring to her being hit on or indeed specifically to her. I'm referring to a more general view being expressed, that people who feel worried about using any gym are worrying needlessly. People suffering from social anxiety, body dysmorphia, whatever, aren't going to be persuaded that easily.5 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »What interests me is how those (on this thread)who feel intimidated by some gyms, are told (by some) that they are imagining things that never really happen, the implication (as I see it) being that they should get over this, yet feeling offended by an advertising ploy is somehow more justifiable.
Nothing has been said to suggest that the things the person (I think there was one) complained about at ONE other gym was less likely to happen at PF or more likely to happen at other gyms.
Her issue was being hit on. PF doesn't advertise that you can't hit on people.
She also claimed that trainers wouldn't leave her alone. If you do minimal research, that's related to a business model that a few gyms use, but hardly all others, or even most. Generalizing to PF is better than all other gyms for these reasons is not rational and just not true. That poster asserted that her gym was better than all other gyms and made a false assertion about what was going on typically at other gyms. No one has said that irritating things don't happen at gyms (including PF) -- irritating things happen everywhere. I will not bore you with my "people behaving badly on the L" stories.
And to reiterate: we didn't say she was imagining being hit on. (I don't know if she was or not, but people do get hit on. It's not related to going to non PF gyms, however. In her own story it wasn't even at a gym by while she was on her way there.)
I wasn't referring to her being hit on or indeed specifically to her. I'm referring to a more general view being expressed, that people who feel worried about using any gym are worrying needlessly. People suffering from social anxiety, body dysmorphia, whatever, aren't going to be persuaded that easily.
I seriously doubt PF is different from most gyms, though. There are a few gyms here that are really for people seriously into strength-training/body-building, and I suspect that's where you'd get less of the nonsense, since they are going to be there for serious, not social reasons. I don't go to the one closest to me -- it's not actually convenient, I want a gym near work -- because I don't think I'd feel totally comfortable there, but I don't trash those gyms or people who go there, I kind of admire them. And if it were the convenient option I'd probably get over my sense that I'm not hardcore enough and just go.
Beyond that, most gyms really aren't going to be that different except in what they have available. They probably vary more based on location than brand name. So the PF brand stands out to me (beyond the fact that they are super cheap and open all the time) mainly because they have chosen to base their marketing around trashing other gyms and the people who go there and to tell people that those at other gyms are mean and intimidating people. That's not helpful and is actually a negative force in the world, IMO.
Is it that big a deal? No, but this thread is about it, and I do often notice people who use PF claiming that people at other gyms are bad and icky, which I think is due to the marketing. Once again, I love my gym, but I don't claim other gyms are inferior or post about that on MFP. (Nor is my gym intimidating.)2 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
Honestly, I'm not that strong and my muscles aren't that big. I'm reasonably lean and in decent shape, but I'd never be mistaken for a bodybuilder (or powerlifter), in the gym or out of it, so it's not about me in the least.
If you've ever undergone any EEO training, you'd understand that if something is unacceptable going one direction, it's equally unacceptable going the other direction also. Fit shaming is just as inappropriate and unacceptable as fat shaming.16 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »And no, I don't think bad about people who go to PF, like I keep saying, it's cheap and has great hours.
Beyond the cheap and hours, I do think it is designed and marketed for a certain type of person who won't feel comfortable in a "regular" gym. People who are more cardio or circuit focused and not into heavy lifting. And there is nothing wrong with that. Hell, even the social aspect (I assume the pizza time is social) is something my gym doesn't have and I'm sure lots of people appreciate. But my gym has squat racks.
It fits a niche, and that's all well and good. They just don't need to ridicule those who are not in that niche. Yeah, it's just like politics (and that's gone beyond the US).
This is my viewpoint in a nutshell. If the equipment available at a PF suites a person's interest and needs, why pay for a more expensive gym to not use a lot of the equipment?
As far as the advertising goes, I do find it offensive as it slams a segment of the population because they have different goals and interests. There are plenty of ways to spin the marketing toward their targeted population without turning it into a "them against us" campaign. On the other hand, look at all the free publicity they get for a relatively moderate advertising blitz - how many threads on all the social media are introducing PF to potential clients who may never have heard of them
7 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
... no, but I do find it annoying that people may think because I'm strong and have big muscles that I'm automatically an uneducated steroid addled caveman with a vocabulary of grunts...
Advertising campaigns like PF uses tend to just reinforce that stereotype. Although I do mostly find their commercials funny - they are definitely insulting to a segment of our population.
I do sometimes wonder what happens to people that do not have easy access to a gym like PF but have fallen for their advertising message... do they just suck it up and try the local gym or do they simply refuse to go to a non PF facility out of fear that some lunk is going to bully them. Believe it or not - not every locality has a PF as an alternative.8 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
... no, but I do find it annoying that people may think because I'm strong and have big muscles that I'm automatically an uneducated steroid addled caveman with a vocabulary of grunts...
Oh, you mean like in this PF ad?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdccUsn8N4Y 7 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
... no, but I do find it annoying that people may think because I'm strong and have big muscles that I'm automatically an uneducated steroid addled caveman with a vocabulary of grunts...
Oh, you mean like in this PF ad?:
lol - yeah. Besides, I'm an Archivist - a historian. You can't get much "nerdier" than that. I don't really consider myself big enough to be a "lunk"; but one of my workout partners is certainly built enough to have crossed that line. He's a Pathologist - a Doctor - who works at Stanford. I'm pretty sure he can do more than grunt.
7 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
... no, but I do find it annoying that people may think because I'm strong and have big muscles that I'm automatically an uneducated steroid addled caveman with a vocabulary of grunts...
Oh, you mean like in this PF ad?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdccUsn8N4Y
This is a garden variety parody - the commercial just exaggerates stereotypes in order to elicit humor. People aren't supposed to identify elements of themselves in this, but if they did, maybe it is time to rethink a few things?
I saw a commercial the other day for the NFL team in my region. It was 3 shirtless idiots fully painted from head to waist, wearing wigs, waving the big "#1" finger on their hands, shouting, chest bumping, etc. I'm also a fan of that team, is that a personal affront to me? Nah, I don't do that, I just throw on a jersey when I go and do not act obnoxious, so why would I personalize a parody like this commercial?3 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
Honestly, I'm not that strong and my muscles aren't that big. I'm reasonably lean and in decent shape, but I'd never be mistaken for a bodybuilder (or powerlifter), in the gym or out of it, so it's not about me in the least.
If you've ever undergone any EEO training, you'd understand that if something is unacceptable going one direction, it's equally unacceptable going the other direction also. Fit shaming is just as inappropriate and unacceptable as fat shaming.
I'm happy to accept that making fun of someone for any reason is an *kitten* move. But calling someone a lunk is not "just as" inappropriate and unacceptable as calling someone a fatty. Making fun of strong people with great bodies will never be as offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable as making fun of fat people.
The word "lunk" is just not comparable to the word "fatty". In general, people don't want to be fat. It would be hurtful for me to call someone a fatty, in almost every single scenario I can think of. In contrast, I think you would accept that if someone called you a lunk, you wouldn't be hurt. @jseams1234 also seems to agree that he wouldn't be hurt by someone calling him a lunk.
I think we should all teach our kids not to make fun of other people for any reason. I think as adults we should follow that behaviour too. But at the same time, I think we should all be able to take a step back and recognise that when someone insults us for being strong and fit, it's not actually insulting, because we train hard to be strong and fit.
Or maybe I'm out of touch with what fit and strong people think. Does anyone actually feel hurt by the PF commercials? I can't say I've read every post in detail, but I got the feeling that it was an (in my opinion, misplaced, as to which see above) issue of principal, not people actually being upset or hurt.16 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
... no, but I do find it annoying that people may think because I'm strong and have big muscles that I'm automatically an uneducated steroid addled caveman with a vocabulary of grunts...
Oh, you mean like in this PF ad?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdccUsn8N4Y
It's funny because it makes fun of people in the lower caste of the victim hierarchy.
Yay postmodernism!8 -
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a gym chain that marketed themselves as being targeted toward fit, strong people, and televised advertisements which mocked, caricatured and made fun of fat people, scrawny people and cardio aficionados? And used terms analogous to “lunks” to describe them? Maybe terms like “slobs”, “pencil necks” and “cardio bunnies”? And had a “wimp alarm” on the wall that sounded a siren and activated a rotating red light to publicly shame/humiliate anybody who attempted anything other than a heavy compound lift? And assured its members of a hardcore, “no wimps, no fatties” environment?lynn_glenmont wrote: »Or am I misunderstanding? Are you just venting? Or do you think PF and similar places shouldn't be allowed to advertise themselves as places where certain behavior is discouraged? What's the result you want here?
Would that all be acceptable and perfectly okay? Or do you think maybe some people might have a problem with it?
Does it make you feel bad when people make fun of how strong you are and how big your muscles are?
Honestly, I'm not that strong and my muscles aren't that big. I'm reasonably lean and in decent shape, but I'd never be mistaken for a bodybuilder (or powerlifter), in the gym or out of it, so it's not about me in the least.
If you've ever undergone any EEO training, you'd understand that if something is unacceptable going one direction, it's equally unacceptable going the other direction also. Fit shaming is just as inappropriate and unacceptable as fat shaming.
I'm happy to accept that making fun of someone for any reason is an *kitten* move. But calling someone a lunk is not "just as" inappropriate and unacceptable as calling someone a fatty. Making fun of strong people with great bodies will never be as offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable as making fun of fat people.
The word "lunk" is just not comparable to the word "fatty". In general, people don't want to be fat. It would be hurtful for me to call someone a fatty, in almost every single scenario I can think of. In contrast, I think you would accept that if someone called you a lunk, you wouldn't be hurt. @jseams1234 also seems to agree that he wouldn't be hurt by someone calling him a lunk.
I think we should all teach our kids not to make fun of other people for any reason. I think as adults we should follow that behaviour too. But at the same time, I think we should all be able to take a step back and recognise that when someone insults us for being strong and fit, it's not actually insulting, because we train hard to be strong and fit.
Or maybe I'm out of touch with what fit and strong people think. Does anyone actually feel hurt by the PF commercials? I can't say I've read every post in detail, but I got the feeling that it was an (in my opinion, misplaced, as to which see above) issue of principal, not people actually being upset or hurt.
So, one is worse so the other is "okay"?
How about we don't call people either fatty or lunk? Watch the ad in this thread and tell me they are being offensive.7 -
I'm happy to accept that making fun of someone for any reason is an *kitten* move. But calling someone a lunk is not "just as" inappropriate and unacceptable as calling someone a fatty.
Who is defending calling people fatties?Making fun of strong people with great bodies will never be as offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable as making fun of fat people.
My problem with the marketing is that people are told that they should fear that people at other gyms will be cruel to them, that those people are mean (and dumb and socially uncouth). There are stereotypes about strong people being meatheads or socially uncouth or jerks. But again the issue for me isn't so much mocking people as pushing this "us against them" narrative. Yay, we aren't around those icky other people in that other gym. They are bad people who you should avoid.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I'm happy to accept that making fun of someone for any reason is an *kitten* move. But calling someone a lunk is not "just as" inappropriate and unacceptable as calling someone a fatty. Making fun of strong people with great bodies will never be as offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable as making fun of fat people.
The word "lunk" is just not comparable to the word "fatty". In general, people don't want to be fat. It would be hurtful for me to call someone a fatty, in almost every single scenario I can think of. In contrast, I think you would accept that if someone called you a lunk, you wouldn't be hurt. @jseams1234 also seems to agree that he wouldn't be hurt by someone calling him a lunk.
I think we should all teach our kids not to make fun of other people for any reason. I think as adults we should follow that behaviour too. But at the same time, I think we should all be able to take a step back and recognise that when someone insults us for being strong and fit, it's not actually insulting, because we train hard to be strong and fit.
Or maybe I'm out of touch with what fit and strong people think. Does anyone actually feel hurt by the PF commercials? I can't say I've read every post in detail, but I got the feeling that it was an (in my opinion, misplaced, as to which see above) issue of principal, not people actually being upset or hurt.
So, one is worse so the other is "okay"?
"I'm happy to accept that making fun of someone for any reason is an *kitten* move"How about we don't call people either fatty or lunk? Watch the ad in this thread and tell me they are being offensive.
"I think we should all teach our kids not to make fun of other people for any reason. I think as adults we should follow that behaviour too."
No one is. I never said someone was. @AnvilHead posted a hypothetical scenario about an advertising campaign that called people fatties, with the implication that if you were against this hypothetical advertising campaign, PF's advertising must be unacceptable. He then said "If you've ever undergone any EEO training, you'd understand that if something is unacceptable going one direction, it's equally unacceptable going the other direction also". The point I made is that these two things are simply not the same, for the reasons I set out in my post.Making fun of strong people with great bodies will never be as offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable as making fun of fat people.
My problem with the marketing is that people are told that they should fear that people at other gyms will be cruel to them, that those people are mean (and dumb and socially uncouth). There are stereotypes about strong people being meatheads or socially uncouth or jerks. But again the issue for me isn't so much mocking people as pushing this "us against them" narrative. Yay, we aren't around those icky other people in that other gym. They are bad people who you should avoid.
Ok.
EDIT: I think fit, healthy and strong people would be happier if they were not insulted or offended by people because of their fitness, health, or strength. In my opinion, the easiest way to achieve this is to choose not to be offended or insulted by what I see as positive attributes.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I'm happy to accept that making fun of someone for any reason is an *kitten* move. But calling someone a lunk is not "just as" inappropriate and unacceptable as calling someone a fatty. Making fun of strong people with great bodies will never be as offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable as making fun of fat people.
The word "lunk" is just not comparable to the word "fatty". In general, people don't want to be fat. It would be hurtful for me to call someone a fatty, in almost every single scenario I can think of. In contrast, I think you would accept that if someone called you a lunk, you wouldn't be hurt. @jseams1234 also seems to agree that he wouldn't be hurt by someone calling him a lunk.
I think we should all teach our kids not to make fun of other people for any reason. I think as adults we should follow that behaviour too. But at the same time, I think we should all be able to take a step back and recognise that when someone insults us for being strong and fit, it's not actually insulting, because we train hard to be strong and fit.
Or maybe I'm out of touch with what fit and strong people think. Does anyone actually feel hurt by the PF commercials? I can't say I've read every post in detail, but I got the feeling that it was an (in my opinion, misplaced, as to which see above) issue of principal, not people actually being upset or hurt.
So, one is worse so the other is "okay"?
"I'm happy to accept that making fun of someone for any reason is an *kitten* move"How about we don't call people either fatty or lunk? Watch the ad in this thread and tell me they are being offensive.
"I think we should all teach our kids not to make fun of other people for any reason. I think as adults we should follow that behaviour too."
No one is. I never said someone was. @AnvilHead posted a hypothetical scenario about an advertising campaign that called people fatties, with the implication that if you were against this hypothetical advertising campaign, PF's advertising must be unacceptable. He then said "If you've ever undergone any EEO training, you'd understand that if something is unacceptable going one direction, it's equally unacceptable going the other direction also". The point I made is that these two things are simply not the same, for the reasons I set out in my post.Making fun of strong people with great bodies will never be as offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable as making fun of fat people.
My problem with the marketing is that people are told that they should fear that people at other gyms will be cruel to them, that those people are mean (and dumb and socially uncouth). There are stereotypes about strong people being meatheads or socially uncouth or jerks. But again the issue for me isn't so much mocking people as pushing this "us against them" narrative. Yay, we aren't around those icky other people in that other gym. They are bad people who you should avoid.
Ok.
EDIT: I think fit, healthy and strong people would be happier if they were not insulted or offended by people because of their fitness, health, or strength. In my opinion, the easiest way to achieve this is to choose not to be offended or insulted by what I see as positive attributes.
Again, my objection has nothing to do with being offended by being insulted for being fit. It is about (1) being offended by being insulted for being dumb or socially uncouth or mean (and I think the negative connotation of being those things -- and particularly dumb -- is worse than being fat, and I say this as someone who was very fat); and (2) (and more important) about creating hatred and division by telling people that those at other gyms are bad, mean people.
And yes, I find it offensive when people claim that everyone who goes to gyms other than PF are bad, mean people who will harass them. Also, as someone obsessed with truthfulness, it bothers me just because it is a lie.
Why are you defending this?7 -
...@AnvilHead posted a hypothetical scenario about an advertising campaign that called people fatties, with the implication that if you were against this hypothetical advertising campaign, PF's advertising must be unacceptable. He then said "If you've ever undergone any EEO training, you'd understand that if something is unacceptable going one direction, it's equally unacceptable going the other direction also". The point I made is that these two things are simply not the same, for the reasons I set out in my post...
But they are. They're exactly the same. It's your perception that sees them differently.
There's no difference between perpetuating a stereotype that fat people are lazy, undisciplined pigs and perpetuating a stereotype that fit/muscular people are stupid, shallow, overly aggressive narcissists.
But I mean, if we're really going to take a deep dive into EEO and go by the letter of the law rather than common sense and decency, neither of the above fall under "protected class" status (unless the obesity is due to illness, in which case it could fall under ADA law), so technically they're both fair game.
Man, if I had the money lying around, I'd love to open the "no fatties, no wimps" gym I mentioned earlier and run a nationwide advertising blitz using tactics similar to PF, just to watch people flip their *kitten* over it. And then point out the similarities to PF's marketing campaign.8 -
But they are. They're exactly the same. It's your perception that sees them differently.
There's no difference between perpetuating a stereotype that fat people are lazy, undisciplined pigs and perpetuating a stereotype that fit/muscular people are stupid, shallow, overly aggressive narcissists.
But I mean, if we're really going to take a deep dive into EEO and go by the letter of the law rather than common sense and decency, neither of the above fall under "protected class" status (unless the obesity is due to illness, in which case it could fall under ADA law), so technically they're both fair game.
Man, if I had the money lying around, I'd love to open the "no fatties, no wimps" gym I mentioned earlier and run a nationwide advertising blitz using tactics similar to PF, just to watch people flip their *kitten* over it. And then point out the similarities to PF's marketing campaign.
I understand the whole "technically they're the same" argument. I just don't think anyone is reasonably offended or hurt by the PF commercial you posted above, and I think people would be reasonably offended or hurt by a commercial calling people fatties. And I think that matters. But that's just guesswork on my behalf, I obviously can't speak for everyone.Again, my objection has nothing to do with being offended by being insulted for being fit. It is about (1) being offended by being insulted for being dumb or socially uncouth or mean (and I think the negative connotation of being those things -- and particularly dumb -- is worse than being fat, and I say this as someone who was very fat); and (2) (and more important) about creating hatred and division by telling people that those at other gyms are bad, mean people.
And yes, I find it offensive when people claim that everyone who goes to gyms other than PF are bad, mean people who will harass them. Also, as someone obsessed with truthfulness, it bothers me just because it is a lie.
Why are you defending this?
I'm not sure why you think that I'm arguing with you. I've engaged in 1 single point, which is whether making fun of someone fat is the same as making fun of someone fit. But just to clarify, you're offended by this commercial:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdccUsn8N4Y 1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions