Equality laws gone crazy

Remove all ads!

So I see this article and all I can think of is these people must be crazy. Is this just internet craziness, or is there an actual possibility that this becomes a law?

Spoiler

Gym staff who issue advice to women could be prosecuted under equality laws

Gym staff could be prosecuted for warning a woman not to lift heavy weights under equality legislation being championed by Harriet Harman.

By Melissa Kite, Deputy political editor
Published: 9:00PM GMT 13 Mar 2010

Gym staff could be prosecuted for warning a woman not to lift heavy weights under equality legislation

Insinuating that a woman is not as strong as a man will be "unlawful sex discrimination", under the terms of the forthcoming Equality Bill.

A code of practice explaining the legal implications of the Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, states that being a woman is "a protected characteristic".

The code, drawn up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, explains ways in which women might be unfairly stereotyped and defines behaviours that will in future be seen as discrimination.

It includes a long list of examples of "unintentional less favourable treatment" including what might happen to a woman when she joins a gym and begins lifting weights.

It states: "A general stereotype about men and women is that in terms of physique, most men are stronger than most women. Nevertheless it is likely to be unlawful sex discrimination for a gym to test every woman's strength but not every man's before allowing them access to weightlifting facilities."

The code makes clear that it will not be seen as an excuse if the motive of the gym staff is to help a woman or save her from injury.

"It does not matter what the service provider's intentions are or whether the service provider's less favourable treatment of the person is conscious or unconscious.

"The service provider may even think that they are doing the person a favour, or simply be unaware that they are treating the person differently because of a protected characteristic."

The Bill, championed by Ms Harman, the Equalities Minister, has already courted much controversy and attracted the criticism of the Pope when it proposed that churches would be prosecuted for refusing to employ gay people.

The legislation also provides protection under the law from discrimination for "any religious belief or philosophical belief" and even "a lack of belief".

Last week it emerged that vegans would be protected, along with members of cults and "new religions" such as Scientology.

Advertisements giving preferential treatment to men or women could also be illegal, meaning the end of "ladies' nights" at clubs, when women receive cut-price drinks or free entrance but men pay full price.

People for whom abstention from alcohol was a way of life would be given new rights to protect them from discrimination.

The Bill will give more scope too for the prosecution of shopkeepers and club owners who refuse to allow entry to certain types of people.

It says that shopkeepers who refuse entry to black teenagers, for example, after stories in the local press about thefts in the area by black teenagers will be prosecuted for race discrimination.

The Bill also creates a new offence of discrimination by association. The code states that if a nightclub refused entry to three Polish people and an English man, the English man could claim he has suffered racial discrimination by association.

If a boy is refused membership of his local football club and his parents are two lesbian women, he could claim "unlawful direct discrimination by association because of sexual orientation".

 

This is exactly why the UK is nuts.

I especially love this part:

So you cant prevent them from injuring themselves, and let me guess, when that happens, you are responsible.

So I couldnt warn a woman that she could injure herself, and when she does its my fault. Great.

Also... sorry but men are physically stronger. I doubt there is a biologist alive who would disagree with this, even if some specific exceptions (ie female body builders) can be found.

 

It's a silly law that can be easily circumvented, and exploited.

To use the gym example, you could actually be a prick about it and give women LESS access to the weights. You just implement a rule along the following guidelines: In order to access the free weights, you must be able to bench press at least 135 pounds. (That's the weight of a standard Olympic bar, with a plate on each side.) Most men, even with minimal strength training can do that. Most women, even with strength training, cannot. The same rule applies regardless of gender, so no special treatment. Sorry ma'am, I understand that you are 5 feet tall and weigh 95 pounds soaking wet, but it looks like you'll be relegated to the Nautalis equipment during your time at the gym.

 

I think it is the outrage that is kinda crazy. I just read your spoiler Snook but as I understand it a gym should not be allowed to require women to do something men do not have to do. Basically, a man and a woman of equal stature and strength would need to go through the same tests to use the equipment. I have seen some big women in my days and plenty of tiny skinny dudes. The safety rules should be about whether you are strong enough to handle a weight or a machine, not whether you are a man or a woman. That is how I read the excerpt from the article and even though I may think it is a bit silly to legislate about something like that I do not find it exceedingly crazy.

Now if it really was about a law that banned instructors from warning women to use equipment they lack the strength to control you would have a point but that is not how I read it.

 

Just another step in the campaign of woman to subjugate man ... take away his discretion and still hold him accountable while grinding him under your foot.

(just kidding)

 

Hysteria. Such a case will never make it to court.

 

One of the reasons my mother quit going to the gym were the comments from staff about how she shouldn't push herself and the guys mocked her when she went to do weight training.

So I can see where the point is coming from

A lot of the 'student towns' do womens nights and cheaper drinks for women on certain days of the week, it seems only fair their should be an opportunity for men to get the same treatment.

 

I went to a spa with my wife before we were married. It was fun to watch the men drop their jaws at the amount she lifts. She even had a guy come up and offer to train her for competition.

 

Everyone has reasons for what they do, and not all of those reasons are DISCRIMINATION or SEXISM or HATE or whatever hysterical horsecrap the rights brigade wants to yammer at us. If such a law passes it'll be another example of the Big Brother state engaging in an unbelievable level of control over the actions of its citizens. It's stupid, it's micromanaging via intrusive legislation, it's just plain wrong on a million fronts.

I'm sure that there are other ways of addressing any real problems that exist at health clubs.

 

I say all women under 140 lbs must wear bikinis when frequenting a health club. Those over 140 must wear full-length, loose sweat suits unless voted upon by the nation of Man.

 

Spandex should be outlawed for sized larger than medium.

 

Spandex should just be outlawed!

 

Them women can be deviously deceptive in how strong they are in reality.

My ex from several years ago would be a good example. Barely 150 cm and 50 kg (5 feet and 110 lbs for the metric impaired amongst us) but had no problems in lifting stuff that I could barely budge. Then again, she worked as a gardener and regularly carried ginormous sacks of dirt and fertilizer around, with the occasional vandal-proof stand-alone ashtrays weighing upwards of 200 kg thrown in for good measure.

Another one I met was during my military training. A small, pretty girl on the outside, but after a snide remark from the drill sergeant she picked up the biggest guy around on her shoulders and carried *him* through an obstacle course. Later on we found out that she's into hardcore hiking trips, with the 40+ kg backpacks and all.

Not to mention my dear sister. Wears size XS or sometimes S, but has several times the strength I have, especially on her legs. But I guess being a horseriding fanatic that also owns half a dozen of them and takes care of them all by herself has something to do with it..!

So, if such laws are to be passed, prepare for some... unexpected consequences.

 

True, but exceptions do not disprove the rule. Is there any doubt that if you had 100 random men and women bench press 135 pounds that the total number of repetitions the men would do would be greater then the amount the women woud do? I have no doubt.

A women being sneered at by a man at a gym is more of a reflection that he is an ******* as opposed to a blanket claim of discrimination. I know at my gym, most of the guys trip over themselves to help the women out.

 

I'm fully aware that those examples are exceptions. However, my point was that on the first outlook, NONE of them seemed all that strong. Quite the contrary, in fact. A guy with such strength would rather invariably seem at least beefy, if not outright muscular.

 

I guess my main problem with the law is I doubt most gyms were not actively trying to prevent women from using the weights. I don't have any evidence of this, but I assume the reason why they were asking women to avoid lifting heavy weights was so that there would be less injuries. I imagine that a club could potentially get sued if someone hurt themselves and the staff didn't at least provide some level of warning. Sure, guys can get hurt too, but what an acceptable starting amount of weight is for a guy compared to a woman is significantly different in the vast majority of cases.

 

Harriet Harman is a nutcase anyway. Ignore her and her dumb rules and she'll eventually curl up and die

Or is that wishful thinking?

 

I don't know too much about UK politics, but I'm guessing that's wishful thinking, Silvery. Remember, all stupidity needs to prosper is for smart people not to work their tails off holding it at bay. Stupidity is much more insideous than evil, you see.

 

Amen to that, NOG.

(Pun intended.)