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
-
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 -
I mean, not a bad idea in theory - but so many trainers offer such craptastic advice that I'd be hesitant to see almost any gym (not just PF) offer what they think are the "means and knowledge to fix it". More often than not, it ends up being some Dr. Oz type woo. And will also almost invariably involve supplements which they just happen to sell.lynn_glenmont wrote: »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"?
There are plenty of ethical ways to run an ad campaign that don't involve mockery and being derogatory. Look at any other industry - if I were to open a fast food place and wanted to lure customers, I wouldn't do it by starting an ad campaign that said "McDonalds sucks and all their employees don't wash their hands after they go to the bathroom and their food will make you fat and sick and the customers are all mean and will beat you up as soon as you walk in the door, so eat here instead!". No need to caricature Ronald McD as a Skid Row clown and mock the Hamburglar as the dude breaking down your front door and stealing your TV set.
PF has plenty of positive points they could focus on without bagging on other gyms and insulting their members in a generalized, stereotyped sense. I don't think they're a bad gym other than the advertising stuff - like I said, I'd gladly toss 'em ten bucks a month for a membership if they weren't such douches, and others in this thread have echoed similar sentiments.6 -
...@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.
But that is precisely what the OP is saying.
(I do agree that you can't differentiate between stereotypes and claim one is worse than the other)
2 -
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
I did not say I was offended by a specific commercial. I was quite clear what I was talking about. I think people get offended way too easily in general, so none of this depends on my personal offense. I think it's wrong and bad to tell people that those in other gyms are big dumb meanies who will mock them, and that they should dislike and fear. I see the effect of this by all the PF supporters on MFP who assert that at their gym -- unlike other gyms, supposedly -- things are clean and no one is mean or rude or harasses them. Oddly enough, you don't see people who go to other gyms claiming that the people at all other gyms are mean and icky, just PF fans, and the marketing encourages and creates this.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
Of course it's vastly larger than PF, no one said otherwise. I don't think PF is all that important, but it's the topic of this discussion, and I a small piece of something I think is bad, so I think it's worth noting. I certainly think that it's important for those of us who see it like I do to speak up about it, and I don't agree that it's somehow inappropriate or silly to do so.
Blaming the victims? Please, not at all. Do you think people who go to PF are "victims"? Or the people who claim that all other gyms and the people who go there are bad and mean and scary and awful (and usually not clean). I think THOSE people are being rude and derogatory to others.
As I've mentioned over and over, you don't see people who go to other gyms trashing those who don't go to their preferred gym (edit to add: well, I guess maybe OP, and I'd be asking him questions if he were here).
I don't think PF has what I want in a gym, and it's not near my office or home anyway, and the lunk alarm is stupid, but I totally get why people who want different things or like the cost/hours would join. Most people likely don't join because of the marketing at all (might not even be aware of it). You can tell who is because they are the ones who claim PF is superior to other gyms because of the absence of those bad scary people. (And again, weirdly, because it is clean, as if other gyms are unlikely to be clean.)
As noted, I went to gyms when very fat and out of shape (and embarrassed to be seen exercising by fit people, it's not like I'm unaware of that feeling), so why are the people who go to PF "victims" and worthy of all this coddling and excuses when they say rude things about other people and gyms, but not the rest of us (who are not the ones doing that).
And again, obviously I am not speaking about the vast majority of people who go to PF, who are pretty much the same as people who go to other gyms, but those who buy into the marketing I'm objecting to and go on about other gyms.(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?
I don't think that's what ads for luxury cars say. I think they focus on how nice the car is (I do not have a luxury car, I have a 2008 Prius). I haven't noticed a car commercial that is directly us against them. If I did, I'd probably object to it. (I don't watch ads on TV ever, so if there is an ad you want my opinion on let me know and I will watch it.)(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."
Maybe I'm clueless, but I've never heard of her. Should I google and report back?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.
I started it?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?
This is why I jump into these discussions on PF on MFP and state my views. I have also told people lots of times that gyms aren't scary, people won't pay attention to you, etc.
You seem to think I shouldn't comment on PF's marketing unless I actually think PF is the number one social problem in the US. It seems to bother you that people state their views on PF marketing, because why? It might hurt the feelings of the people who choose PF based on the marketing, who deserve to be treated differently than the rest of us and never hear ideas they might disagree with?
And I don't think anyone is claiming to feel hurt. I do think it's odd that you think it's okay to treat the rest of us differently than someone who claims to be going to PF because people other other gyms are bad and mean. You don't know what all of us have experienced or dealt with or how hard many of the things we've done have been for us, and yet you are painting us as the aggressors and the people who like the divisive PF marketing as sweet helpless little victims, and I think that's rather condescending and also wrong. IMO, they are actually the aggressors, since -- once again -- they are the ones who claim that everyone else goes to gyms full of mean, dirty, nasty people (presumably because we are too).3 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »...@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.
But that is precisely what the OP is saying.
(I do agree that you can't differentiate between stereotypes and claim one is worse than the other)
The OP is not involved in the discussion. I just went back and reread the OP, because I didn't remember what it said, and I don't even understand what he thinks no intimidation gyms are, vs other gyms. What does he think other gyms do that the no intimidation gyms do not?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.
Few definitions of lunk from the web:
Lunk
The root word in the more commonly known term: Lunkhead. A word used to describe someone of low intelligence and usually of a portly stature. see dullard or dolt A heavy, stupid fellow.
Can you believe that? That stupid lunk just cut me off!
Look at that lunk, he dripped ketchup all over his fat gut when he was eating his hamburger.
lunkhead [luhngk-hed]
Word Origin noun Slang.
a dull or stupid person; blockhead.
lunk in British(lʌŋk ) noun
an awkward, heavy, or stupid person
lunk
noun
The definition of a lunk is a stupid person.
An example of lunk is an adult living in normal American society who doesn't know the name of the President of the United States
Please explain again how lunk isn't as bad as fatty?
Name calling isn't right.7 -
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?
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"?
Truth is truth but it doesn't always sell.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »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"?
Sorry to comment again, but I didn't notice this before.
I don't think the only reason for someone to go to a gym is because they are obese or because they are trying to lose weight. Even obese people could go mainly because they think it's important to be active or want to get stronger, without pairing it with weight loss. So no. If one were obese, I don't think such an ad would be bothersome or intimidating, though -- it would say to me that they had no issue with fat people joining and were offering help, which is what I would have liked.
Obviously, I think most fat people wouldn't like it if the gym made a big point of telling them they were fat all the time (what would this involve, the people at check in commenting on weight? that does not happen).
Funny thing is that as someone embarrassed and awkward about going to a gym for the first time (or back after a long time), which I can remember being, I would find PF extra offputting, because I would be scared I might accidentally drop a weight and get the lunk alarm sounded, which would have been humiliating for me back then. And just the focus on social stuff would have made me feel like it was going back to jr high, which I hated, and that kind of social dynamic.
But clearly not everyone has that reaction. And if they could sell the social stuff without the divisive, nasty stuff, then I wouldn't care.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
Of course it's vastly larger than PF, no one said otherwise. I don't think PF is all that important, but it's the topic of this discussion, and I a small piece of something I think is bad, so I think it's worth noting. I certainly think that it's important for those of us who see it like I do to speak up about it, and I don't agree that it's somehow inappropriate or silly to do so.
Blaming the victims? Please, not at all. Do you think people who go to PF are "victims"? Or the people who claim that all other gyms and the people who go there are bad and mean and scary and awful (and usually not clean). I think THOSE people are being rude and derogatory to others.
As I've mentioned over and over, you don't see people who go to other gyms trashing those who don't go to their preferred gym (edit to add: well, I guess maybe OP, and I'd be asking him questions if he were here).
I don't think PF has what I want in a gym, and it's not near my office or home anyway, and the lunk alarm is stupid, but I totally get why people who want different things or like the cost/hours would join. Most people likely don't join because of the marketing at all (might not even be aware of it). You can tell who is because they are the ones who claim PF is superior to other gyms because of the absence of those bad scary people. (And again, weirdly, because it is clean, as if other gyms are unlikely to be clean.)
As noted, I went to gyms when very fat and out of shape (and embarrassed to be seen exercising by fit people, it's not like I'm unaware of that feeling), so why are the people who go to PF "victims" and worthy of all this coddling and excuses when they say rude things about other people and gyms, but not the rest of us (who are not the ones doing that).
And again, obviously I am not speaking about the vast majority of people who go to PF, who are pretty much the same as people who go to other gyms, but those who buy into the marketing I'm objecting to and go on about other gyms.(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?
I don't think that's what ads for luxury cars say. I think they focus on how nice the car is (I do not have a luxury car, I have a 2008 Prius). I haven't noticed a car commercial that is directly us against them. If I did, I'd probably object to it. (I don't watch ads on TV ever, so if there is an ad you want my opinion on let me know and I will watch it.)(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."
Maybe I'm clueless, but I've never heard of her. Should I google and report back?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.
I started it?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?
This is why I jump into these discussions on PF on MFP and state my views. I have also told people lots of times that gyms aren't scary, people won't pay attention to you, etc.
You seem to think I shouldn't comment on PF's marketing unless I actually think PF is the number one social problem in the US. It seems to bother you that people state their views on PF marketing, because why? It might hurt the feelings of the people who choose PF based on the marketing, who deserve to be treated differently than the rest of us and never hear ideas they might disagree with?
And I don't think anyone is claiming to feel hurt. I do think it's odd that you think it's okay to treat the rest of us differently than someone who claims to be going to PF because people other other gyms are bad and mean. You don't know what all of us have experienced or dealt with or how hard many of the things we've done have been for us, and yet you are painting us as the aggressors and the people who like the divisive PF marketing as sweet helpless little victims, and I think that's rather condescending and also wrong. IMO, they are actually the aggressors, since -- once again -- they are the ones who claim that everyone else goes to gyms full of mean, dirty, nasty people (presumably because we are too).
If all anyone (other than the OP, who advocates telling people they're obese because they're lazy -- which I do think is relevant since it was the OP of this thread) is trying to say is that they don't like the PF advertising, I have no problem with that. I have asked and not gotten a response as to what exactly posters want. If it's that something other than criticism and moral sanction and not buying PF's services should be brought to bear to discourage their YouTube ads, I disagree.
I have never run into these people you describe who go to PF and then run around claiming that all other gyms are full of mean people. Nor do I see that claim being made in the one ad that's been posted on this thread. No mention is made of other gyms in that ad.
I think that if there are people going to PF because their experience at other gyms has been unpleasant for them, especially to the extent that there are power imbalances between those who found the other gyms unpleasant and those they perceived as making them unpleasant, I am going to have to save my sympathy for the people who are talking about their own experiences rather than the people who insist that they are hurt by someone talking about their own experiences and who question the validity of the experiences they are attesting to.
Thanks. By making me think about it a little more, I feel far less like I was reaching by bringing up the Lynzy Lab "Scary Time" YouTube video. It's up to you whether you want to google it and report back.3 -
Your mind is obviously already made up, but for anybody else reading along in the thread - PF has a number of commercials which play out ridiculously hyped fictitious 'situations' from other unnamed gyms (portraying the other gym's members in mocking, stereotyped caricatures), followed by a person telling a PF employee "....and that's why I don't like gyms". The PF employee sympathetically comforts them by replying "Well, we're not a gym - we're Planet Fitness". Total "safe spaces" BS, inferring that it's what goes on in all other gyms beside their "non-gym" full of nice, safe people. Ultimate judgment from a (non) gym which portrays themselves as a "judgment free zone".lynn_glenmont wrote: »...I have never run into these people you describe who go to PF and then run around claiming that all other gyms are full of mean people. Nor do I see that claim being made in the one ad that's been posted on this thread. No mention is made of other gyms in that ad...
I'm not going to go dig every one of them up and link them, but here are two of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpwl27_AyhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti9MrEdKOc8
And here's a particularly ridiculous one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7IO21P4yHo
6 -
And it looks like another gym beat me to the punch and did their own version of a PF parody ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBRG4RkE51Q 7 -
...and from having been a member of about 20 different gyms over the past 40 years and not ever even once having seen any "scary" or "intimidating" scenario take place in any one of them, this is about how the soundtrack plays in my head when somebody says they're afraid of going into a gym (I've already admitted I'm not the sensitive, touchy-feely type):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APwfZYO1di4 10 -
I haven't actually seen any scary or intimidating scenarios in gyms... and I worked in the fitness and physical rehab industry for over 25 years. What I mainly think is the problem is no one wants to look stupid or clueless when they first go to a gym (even though nobody is really watching) so they might be more 'comfortable' choosing a place where it seems likely that the rest of the patrons may have the same level of knowledge, rather than a 'traditional gym' where it seems more likely the other patrons (may) know much more than they do. It's like having a running partner... it's just easier if you both run at the same speed. Slower people don't really want to be forced to run with a speedy partner, and the fast ones don't really want to run with slower runners, no matter what they might say to make that scenario feel better.
carry on
6 -
Your mind is obviously already made up, but for anybody else reading along in the thread - PF has a number of commercials which play out ridiculously hyped fictitious 'situations' from other unnamed gyms (portraying the other gym's members in mocking, stereotyped caricatures), followed by a person telling a PF employee "....and that's why I don't like gyms". The PF employee sympathetically comforts them by replying "Well, we're not a gym - we're Planet Fitness". Total "safe spaces" BS, inferring that it's what goes on in all other gyms beside their "non-gym" full of nice, safe people. Ultimate judgment from a (non) gym which portrays themselves as a "judgment free zone".lynn_glenmont wrote: »...I have never run into these people you describe who go to PF and then run around claiming that all other gyms are full of mean people. Nor do I see that claim being made in the one ad that's been posted on this thread. No mention is made of other gyms in that ad...
I'm not going to go dig every one of them up and link them, but here are two of them:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpwl27_AyhYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti9MrEdKOc8
And here's a particularly ridiculous one:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7IO21P4yHo
But don't nearly all businesses promote themselves by highlighting their "unique selling point"? It's the nature of advertising. I'm not defending it, it still makes me angry when, for example, I see adverts which promote a stereotyped view of women, or men for that matter, but I don't think it's unique to PF. It's clear from this thread that there are people who feel apprehensive about gyms. It can't all be down to PF. I've never seen one of their adverts but I am one of those who prefers to workout at home as I am slightly apprehensive about going to a gym. That doesn't make me some kind of snowflake who wants a safe space.
In my case it's backfired on me because I now have injuries which are probably caused by incorrect form and I've had to stop lifting for the moment. I've learned my lesson and in fact many of the comments on this thread have made me feel more positive about going to a gym6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »If all anyone (other than the OP, who advocates telling people they're obese because they're lazy -- which I do think is relevant since it was the OP of this thread) is trying to say is that they don't like the PF advertising, I have no problem with that.
No gyms are based around telling fat people they are lazy. That's as ridiculous as the PF advertising, and if OP were participating, I'd of course raise that with him. He got a lot of negative feedback already, and isn't around, so clearly this thread isn't about him anymore.I have asked and not gotten a response as to what exactly posters want. If it's that something other than criticism and moral sanction and not buying PF's services should be brought to bear to discourage their YouTube ads, I disagree.
Why do people need to "want" something? (You mean legally? Obviously not.)
I think if someone says something negative and divisive it can be useful to disagree, to point out where the person is drawing on stereotypes or making unfair generalizations, that they are talking about people they know -- like you and me -- and not some scary awful people not present. So that's basically what I'm doing here. I find it puzzling that you seem to be dug into saying that it's not appropriate to criticize the advertising, and that any comments about the problems with it or why we don't like it is met with mockery or the like. I suspected that was because you assumed that the PF fans who like the advertising for some reason should be treated with kid gloves, and I think you've acknowledged that. I think that's based on wrong assumptions, and that it even plays into the divisiveness. I think promoting the idea that there are scared fat people and everyone else, who are mean, is really not a sensible understanding of the world today (more people are fat) and not actually encouraging in that PF really isn't less intimidating or nicer than other gyms, it's cheap but lacks things that many people might actually like. So I'd hope people are not choosing to go there because they are told that at other gyms people will be mean and are dumb uncouth lunks.
I also think that if there are things you dislike that others think are okay, largely because they haven't thought about it, it's worth pointing out. For example, that lunk is really quite insulting, that saying people at other gyms are not clean, same. I believe your knee-jerk assumption that people who go to PF because they claim to be scared of the people at other gyms are victims who need to be coddled is why you seem to think that even pointing out these things is mean and that we should not, while people who claim to go to PF because of intimidation cannot possibly be morally responsible for what they say about others. This double-standard is not useful or accurate. Among other things, most of us have been fat and felt very uncomfortable about things and still may at times. IMO, the dividing people up into us and them hurts all of us in some ways (except perhaps for those making money off it or otherwise profiting).
Thus, I think advertising that encourages divisiveness or relies on negative stereotypes about people should meet with social sanction, which again is the point of mentioning it. The defense that PF fans seem to make is "but it works." I don't think that's a good defense -- I think that news organizations should focus on news and not clickbait or the most sensational stuff, however non newsworthy, and the defense "well, it's profitable" is not adequate, they have a moral responsibility. Same with PF, and they are failing it. The best cure for bad speech is good speech, so I am stating my opinion, sorry that bothers you.I have never run into these people you describe who go to PF and then run around claiming that all other gyms are full of mean people.
I have, on MFP specifically. As for the ads, what AnvilHead said.
Also, I don't think we've heard of an example of someone who was made to feel uncomfortable for being out of shape and overweight at other gyms and then had a good experience at PF. We had someone who apparently went to a gym where trainers are encouraged to solicit for clients (not likely they'd be mean in that case, but possibly annoying, it's trivially easy to understand the gyms where this happens and avoid them), and the same person asserted that PF was superior because she got hit on constantly elsewhere (which really doesn't sound like insecurity, quite the opposite), the example happened outside a gym, and in any event PF does not claim to protect people from being hit on.
The vast majority of comments about PF from people trashing other gyms are from people who do not claim to have had bad experiences at other gyms. They are like: "I'm glad I go here instead of some other gym because it's clean and people treat me well and don't pick on me, and the equipment is always available" -- this shows they have bought into the negative claims at other gyms.
Anyway, I don't think it's that big a deal, I just think the ads are a minor negative factor and people buying into the ads are the same. I also think assuming that people who go to PF are in a power imbalance with others and therefore that we shouldn't criticize the advertising is a problematic take and that maybe you should think about whether you are too quick to judge who has power who does not, who may genuinely feel hurt, who may not (in my world being called stupid or dirty or socially uncouth would have been much more of an insult, including when I was fat, then noting I was fat, which I'd usually front), and especially whether these assumptions about power dynamics should color what should be a clear discussion of facts -- is PF's marketing approach divisive? Would it be better if they just focused on their actual pluses, like cheapness and hours, is the lunk alarm something that could make lots of people feel uncomfortable (including socially anxious fat people -- remember, I said I would be scared of accidentally dropping something and being humiliated)? If all this is still profitable for them, I'm sure they don't care, but I think they should be called out.
For what it's worth, if people said "yeah, the ads aren't great, but I go to the gym because it's convenience and cheap" I'd get it. But I got drawn into this because you and some others seemed to be annoyed or bothered that people thought the ads were objectionable, and that it should not be said because if some desire to protect the assumed to be delicate people who go to PF? I think that's a really troubling and wrong assumption in a lot of ways, if I am understanding your intent here correctly.7 -
canadjineh wrote: »I haven't actually seen any scary or intimidating scenarios in gyms... and I worked in the fitness and physical rehab industry for over 25 years. What I mainly think is the problem is no one wants to look stupid or clueless when they first go to a gym (even though nobody is really watching) so they might be more 'comfortable' choosing a place where it seems likely that the rest of the patrons may have the same level of knowledge, rather than a 'traditional gym' where it seems more likely the other patrons (may) know much more than they do. It's like having a running partner... it's just easier if you both run at the same speed. Slower people don't really want to be forced to run with a speedy partner, and the fast ones don't really want to run with slower runners, no matter what they might say to make that scenario feel better.
carry on
But to me, the bolded is still playing into PF's false (and stereotypical) narrative. Almost any gym has new/inexperienced/unfit patrons - it's not as if every gym but PF is full of jacked, tanned, physically perfect specimens who have worked out their entire lives and have iron running through their veins. The gym I go to has everything from scrawny teenagers to 90-year old senior citizens on walkers with oxygen tanks. I'd even go so far as to say that the unfit or "average" people outnumber the super-fit people by 4 or 5 to one.
Yes - if you walk into a hardcore powerlifting or bodybuilding gym, you could expect to see a different demographic and feel a very different vibe to the place. The same could even be said of crossfit-type gyms. But most chain/"big box" gyms (which comprise the majority of gyms in most places) aren't going to be much, if at all, different than PF in terms of the people there.6 -
I have to tread carefully here. On the one hand, the idea of PF sounds great and I especially love that they will throw you out for wearing sexy workout clothes and treating the place as your singles pickup facility and that they toss out guys who make a lot of noise while lifting weights, etc, etc. That's just fun for me to read about. The price is cheap, blahdeeblah... However, when I joined I was faced with a huge room full of machines that I was clueless to use. My last adventure with an exercycle was an old Schwinn model that just had a manual mileage counter and some kind of adjustable tension...but no electronics at all. Nowadays, I find that people give me a blank stare if I ask about exercycles...they are no longer called that. I asked at the desk about getting some help and was told that they didn't help. You just were expected to know or bug another member, which is not my style. People are working out and you leave them alone.So much for the website promise of coaches working the floor. I went twice. I had been really jazzed about getting in there and sweating...oh and, all those TV monitors - you had to have an iphone to get sound. I use an Android. All in all, I left totally understanding why it's so cheap. So sad...I'll stick to hiking.3
-
The thing PF conveniently fails to mention is that almost every gym has rules/a code of conduct that members are expected to abide by. While the dress codes are usually looser than PF's silly arbitrary rules, sexual harassment isn't tolerated in pretty much any gym, and most gyms will take action if somebody is being unnecessarily boisterous/obnoxious while lifting, throwing weights around, etc. - and they even somehow manage to do it without using a "lunk alarm" to publicly humiliate you in front of the entire gym.cmoorecole wrote: »...On the one hand, the idea of PF sounds great and I especially love that they will throw you out for wearing sexy workout clothes and treating the place as your singles pickup facility and that they toss out guys who make a lot of noise while lifting weights, etc, etc...
Unless one is going to a real skanky sleazehole of a gym, all the things PF prides itself on not allowing aren't tolerated anywhere. It's not like PF is the only gym that has rules and every other gym is an unregulated jungle of debauchery and bad behavior.4 -
The thing PF conveniently fails to mention is that almost every gym has rules/a code of conduct that members are expected to abide by. While the dress codes are usually looser than PF's silly arbitrary rules, sexual harassment isn't tolerated in pretty much any gym, and most gyms will take action if somebody is being unnecessarily boisterous/obnoxious while lifting, throwing weights around, etc. - and they even somehow manage to do it without using a "lunk alarm" to publicly humiliate you in front of the entire gym.
It's marketing material, not an objective analysis of the pros and cons of pf vs average gyms.5 -
The thing PF conveniently fails to mention is that almost every gym has rules/a code of conduct that members are expected to abide by. While the dress codes are usually looser than PF's silly arbitrary rules, sexual harassment isn't tolerated in pretty much any gym, and most gyms will take action if somebody is being unnecessarily boisterous/obnoxious while lifting, throwing weights around, etc. - and they even somehow manage to do it without using a "lunk alarm" to publicly humiliate you in front of the entire gym.cmoorecole wrote: »...On the one hand, the idea of PF sounds great and I especially love that they will throw you out for wearing sexy workout clothes and treating the place as your singles pickup facility and that they toss out guys who make a lot of noise while lifting weights, etc, etc...
Unless one is going to a real skanky sleazehole of a gym, all the things PF prides itself on not allowing aren't tolerated anywhere. It's not like PF is the only gym that has rules and every other gym is an unregulated jungle of debauchery and bad behavior.
I belonged to a gym that was owned by a bronze medalist in Olympic Weight Lifting. The only weights dropped in his gym were specifically designed to be dropped and they were dropped on a lifting platform.
Anyone throwing or dropping weights in a "look at me" manner was out the door, no second chance. He only had to do it twice.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions