Daily Dose: A women-only gym would be counterproductive

A recent post on the Spotted At Mac Facebook page stated the need for a women-only gym because a participant at the Pulse felt that she was being reduced to eye-candy. This concern is warranted, certainly, for it details an issue of discomfort. If a person does not feel the environment is conducive to working out, then something must change. Does this imply the gym itself requires restructuring? Perhaps. Does this mean all should work out in isolation, though? Absolutely not.

Don’t let the gains confuse you. A gym is not a place of objectification, though objectification may very well occur within its walls. Instead it is a place where gender equality comes to thrive.

Some argue otherwise. They say that the Pulse is the problem. This is certainly hard to quantify off of one anecdotal account, harder yet by the inaccuracy of the claim. The Pulse, while minimal, has women's hours from 7:00-8:30 Mondays and Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Thursdays 4:30-6:00. In such a limited space, that is something, and maybe even more than that (particularly given that there are women-only intramural leagues such as basketball and women-only fitness centres in Westdale like Allure).

Others say that the system in question is not the gym itself but the larger societal construct of oppression and marginalization. The gym is just one instance where a woman’s body becomes a trophy worthy of eye-gawking. It is not the problem, only part of it.

This may be true, and if there is to be a change, then, it must not be restricted to the gym. Patriarchy must be sussed out everywhere.

Part of me believes a gym attempts to solve - or at least muddle - this in some way, though. The gym is an area where one’s physical capability can be demonstrated and built upon. The goal applies equally. As a result, men become eye-candy just as much as woman may be, a consideration that is especially true with a variety of sexual orientations. Men can look at men. Women can look at women. And so on.

It may be that the patriarchy demeans all as objects, yet this is in tension with a gym being based on the community that can result from physical activities together. Take the football team working out with its players. Or members of a spin class that develop a friendship after Circuit City. Or a group of people from the mind and meditation session that go for beers after reaching some inner peace. There is a sense of belonging shared, and restricting these possibilities through arbitrary concessions is to deny what brings us to the gym in the first place: to grow, to celebrate, and to become better together.

Of course, what must also be remembered is that gender is fluid. Not all will identify as strictly female or strictly male. What of the trans-gendered? What of those biologically androgynous? And those who identify as nothing at all? Where would these multitudes of people go in this women-only gym?

Some may say trying to answer these questions is just an infinite amount of pandering to an infinite number of categories. This is not the case, however. It is not us, those who are steadfast in their identification, to decide if one’s gender compartmentalization is relevant. We do not face their struggles nor do we understand their successes all the same.

Even if it is just seems like liberal nonsense to some, then it is nonsense that allows for a simple solution: the inability to separate strictly on gender. If there is no such thing, then there is nothing to separate on. This, too, leads to further questions about trans-gendered changerooms, an outcome some may be even less comfortable with.

So, what's left? Exactly what was begun with: we must open the gym to all for all. Such an idea is what we’re striving for in the first place: gender equality. And in a gym, this is where the idea can be built upon one weight at a time. Doing else wise is creating a burden too few can lift.