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"
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Feel hurt? Not at all. Advertising doesn't have the power over me. Think it's offensive and stupid, yeah. Definitely. And that has nothing to do with whether PF fills a need in the Marketplace and is suitable for some folks.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.
Feel hurt? Not at all. Advertising doesn't have the power over me. Think it's offensive and stupid, yeah. Definitely. And that has nothing to do with whether PF fills a need in the Marketplace and is suitable for some folks.
You're offended by the commercial that has been reposted repeatedly in this thread?0 -
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?
To be honest, I'd be curious how long they'd stay in business. I'd be interested in the outcome of any lawsuits brought by people who joined before they started that advertising campaign and installing the wimp alarms (in this analogy, that's supposed to be a real thing, right, not just part of the ad campaign?) and yet weren't allowed to quit (i.e., stop paying their fees) when the company started making it clear they weren't welcome.
Otherwise, I'd feel pretty much the same as I do about these PF ads you describe (as I said, the PF ads I see on TV focus on the 24/7 hours and the low cost). It's an an attempt to get people to come to their gym based on segmenting the market. And, yeah, they'd definitely get blow back from some people.
So your goal is to try to convince everyone else to hate these PF ads as much as you do? Sorry, can't oblige.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
And claims that can't be measured and judged true or false (like corn flakes are "GR-E-A-T!) -- "advertising fluff" -- are legal and generally will not be accepted by U.S. courts as the basis of a false advertising lawsuit (not a lawyer, but for professional reasons and personal curiosity I do casually follow court actions in these types of cases).
And my understanding is that most people that join any kind of gym only go a few times, and that in fact most gyms' business models depend on revenue from such members which require no spending on the gyms' part other than advertising to recruit them, a little time from staffer to get them to sign a contract, and billing. No need to figure them in to equipment purchase and maintenance, staffing, cleaning, water bills, laundry bills if the gym provides towels, etc.0 -
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.
When I weighed 270 pounds and was around 30-35% bodyfat, I wasn't hurt or offended by TV shows/comments/advertisements/etc. about fatties. I knew I was fat. I was embarrassed that I let myself get that way. I also knew it was 100% my fault and that I, and only I, was the one in control of doing something about it and not being a fatty anymore.
I'm not "hurt" even one iota by the PF commercials. I wouldn't even call it offended. I just think it's douchey and wrong - and I'm not the politically correct, touchy-feely, warm and fuzzy, "safe spaces" type in the least. I understand the demographic they're trying to attract. I realize that those people exist and that there's a good market to make money off them by preying upon their insecurities. I just don't like the way PF goes about it. They could still attract that demographic without demeaning and ridiculing another group, just like my hypothetical gym could attract the hardcore element without demeaning and ridiculing fatties and pencil necks, if I so chose.
I don't think it matters one bit to consider whether part of one group would be offended and part of another group might not - if it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of how many people in a given group it offends or doesn't. I'm going to tread as delicately as I possibly can here - I have friends who are of different....heritage(s)....than I am. Some of them are not offended in the least by jokes or off-color comments about their 'heritage' - in fact, they even actively participate in them and respond in kind with equally off-color comments/jokes - but others of their heritage(s) would be very deeply offended, even outraged, by the same jokes/comments. The fact that some of them aren't offended by it doesn't mean such jokes/comments are okay - it's still wrong, it's just that one can get away with it in certain situations. Being able to get away with it in certain situations isn't the same thing as acceptable conduct.
I probably look at this from a little different angle than most because I conducted numerous EEO/discrimination investigations as part of my job, which means that I also received a lot of training on it. While PF's marketing/advertising obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with EEO per se, and (also obviously) isn't legally actionable discrimination, I see a lot of tangentially relevant points in this discussion and my perception is colored by my experiences.6 -
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.
OK. This at least seems like a better point than "my feelings are hurt because this one chain of gyms doesn't me because I lift heavy." But it also seems like a problem that is (1) vastly larger than PF and (2) bordering on blaming the victims.
(1) For just one example, how do you feel about advertising for luxury goods, especially cars, which by and large is based on the premise (even if unstated) that people who buy those goods "deserve" those luxuries because they can afford them, and that it will allow them peace and relaxation and comfort and a reflection of their success that sets apart from all those schmucks who can't afford them? Are those ads unethetical and immoral?
(2) Again, just one analogy, but do you blame people Lynzy Lab for her "Scary Time" YouTube video that seems based on "every day women have to worry about men who might be terrible and would be mean to them, and it's best for you to be on your guard and not jog with ear buds or leave your drink unattended." Yeah, maybe the comparison is over the top, but I'd say you started it by comparing fearing and disliking people whose use of a shared space makes you uncomfortable to the other divisions and anger in the U.S.
And, I've said it before, but I just don't buy the idea that PF is creating the social anxiety and fear that they appeal to in these ads that, as I've said before, I've never seen on TV. If it was that easy to create that social anxiety and fear, why are regular gyms still attracting members? Or why don't they resort to caricaturing the kinds of folks who go to PF and offer themselves, as another posted suggested, as "wimp-free" zones? If this was really some great hatred-fueled division as you suggest, you would expect it to have gained more traction -- and I wouldn't expect you to be able to honestly say you don't think bad about people who go to PF. Because if it's this big division, obviously they have chosen to be on the other side.
If you really see this as a serious problem, ... well, I don't know what to suggest. Stand outside PFs and hand out educational pamphlets explaining how regular gyms are mostly filled with nice people and there's nothing to fear? I've delivered that same message repeatedly in a separate thread on this board, as well as in other threads when someone expressed concern about going to a gym because they're out of shape or self-conscious or worried about getting hit on. In my life experience, the gyms I have gone to -- university gyms, commercial chains, independent gyms, and women-only gyms -- are among the safest spaces I can think of in terms of people mostly letting you do your thing while they do theirs. I have never been to a PF and can't imagine, based on their ads and their apparent opposition to equipment like squat racks, ever going unless I faced financial constraints that made that my only gym option.
But my life experience isn't everyone's, and if a gym that markets itself as non-intimidation fits a need for some segment of the population, and makes it easier for some people who would not join my gym to have access to cardio equipment and ... hand weights? resistance machines? ... whatever else they provide, that's a good thing.
I'm really sorry that people find advertising that mocks people who lift heavy to be so deeply hurt. I'm sure there were some men who felt hurt by Lynzy Lab's song.3 -
jseams1234 wrote: »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.
Then why would either one of you feel that the guys in that stupid PF YouTube ad are meant to be you?3 -
Because they know exactly the kind of blowback they'd get if they put the shoe on the other foot. That's why.lynn_glenmont wrote: »...And, I've said it before, but I just don't buy the idea that PF is creating the social anxiety and fear that they appeal to in these ads that, as I've said before, I've never seen on TV. If it was that easy to create that social anxiety and fear, why are regular gyms still attracting members? Or why don't they resort to caricaturing the kinds of folks who go to PF and offer themselves, as another posted suggested, as "wimp-free" zones? If this was really some great hatred-fueled division as you suggest, you would expect it to have gained more traction...
What's good for the goose wouldn't be good for the gander. And that's the fundamental problem I have with it (note that I didn't say I was "hurt" by it, as you repeatedly infer).1 -
Because they know exactly the kind of blowback they'd get if they put the shoe on the other foot. That's why.lynn_glenmont wrote: »...And, I've said it before, but I just don't buy the idea that PF is creating the social anxiety and fear that they appeal to in these ads that, as I've said before, I've never seen on TV. If it was that easy to create that social anxiety and fear, why are regular gyms still attracting members? Or why don't they resort to caricaturing the kinds of folks who go to PF and offer themselves, as another posted suggested, as "wimp-free" zones? If this was really some great hatred-fueled division as you suggest, you would expect it to have gained more traction...
What's good for the goose wouldn't be good for the gander. And that's the fundamental problem I have with it.
OK, I can respect it as a principled position on equal treatment.
Can you imagine any way you would find it acceptable for a gym chain to market itself to the segment of the population who don't go to gyms because of anxieties or past bad experiences at gyms? Would it have to be essentially a PSA saying gyms aren't the way you think and that doesn't make any attempt to attract that segment to their gyms? Or do you believe that the anxieties aren't reality-based and the experiences are imagined or irrelevant, and no gym should try to address this segment of the population?
ETA:
Or, to bring it back to the OP of the thread, do you believe the only ethical position for a gym ad would be to say "you are obese, here is the means and knowledge to fix it - now put in some work"?0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Because they know exactly the kind of blowback they'd get if they put the shoe on the other foot. That's why.lynn_glenmont wrote: »...And, I've said it before, but I just don't buy the idea that PF is creating the social anxiety and fear that they appeal to in these ads that, as I've said before, I've never seen on TV. If it was that easy to create that social anxiety and fear, why are regular gyms still attracting members? Or why don't they resort to caricaturing the kinds of folks who go to PF and offer themselves, as another posted suggested, as "wimp-free" zones? If this was really some great hatred-fueled division as you suggest, you would expect it to have gained more traction...
What's good for the goose wouldn't be good for the gander. And that's the fundamental problem I have with it.
OK, I can respect it as a principled position on equal treatment.
Can you imagine any way you would find it acceptable for a gym chain to market itself to the segment of the population who don't go to gyms because of anxieties or past bad experiences at gyms? Would it have to be essentially a PSA saying gyms aren't the way you think and that doesn't make any attempt to attract that segment to their gyms? Or do you believe that the anxieties aren't reality-based and the experiences are imagined or irrelevant, and no gym should try to address this segment of the population?
I'll just quote from my post above, in case you missed it:...I understand the demographic they're trying to attract. I realize that those people exist and that there's a good market to make money off them by preying upon their insecurities. I just don't like the way PF goes about it. They could still attract that demographic without demeaning and ridiculing another group, just like my hypothetical gym could attract the hardcore element without demeaning and ridiculing fatties and pencil necks, if I so chose...2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions