babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Edmonton Municipal Gyms are Body Shaming Women

quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

Guess there's a new movement a foot to control what women wear.


Comments

quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

Edmonton has a new policy at their community gyms to not allow women to wear sport tops which show our midrifts. staff are body shaming women who've no idea they quietly decided to control women.

but yet their advertising shows women working out with *gasp* their bellies showing. solution? they're going to get new advertising posters.

this on top of the Province requesting women not to wear yoga pants yesterday.


lagatta4
Offline
Joined: May 9 2013

Is there actually a policy on what gym wear is acceptable? I've heard of private gyms with such policies (not just about women - men were forbidden to wear tank tops with no sleeves, or to train without a shirt), but never public ones.

I googled The Province (assume you mean the paper, not your province) yoga pants and just got what appeared to be an opinion article. It wasn't even Canadian - from the Washington Post. Nobody has the right to tell women what to wear, but they do have a right to opinions on fashion they see as sloppy. In this case the writer was female. I don't think she was talking only about women, though the corresponding "soft" trousers men wear usually have diferent names, like track pants.

If this is the article, I see no body-shaming in it, such as mentioning people being too fat, lumpy or out of shape to "dress like that": http://www.theprovince.com/kerry+folan+yoga+pants+comfy+they+also+assaul...

It is true that here in Montréal, people (male, female or otherwise) are less likely to wear "du mou" outside the house - I have yoga pants on now as I write in my home ofice, but if I go out even to shop in the neighbourhood, I'll change into jeans or a skirt and warm tights.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Quote:

The current guidelines for city recreational facilities simply say "appropriate, clean attire and indoor closed-toed footwear is mandatory."

The city interprets the guidelines to mean that men must always wear shirts, and that women and men must cover their midriffs, Badger explained.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/city-of-edmonton-reviewing-what-t...

Kind of a ridiculous interpretation, considering that in these same facilities there would be swimming pools that have people with their bellies visible.

 

 


quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

lagatta the report on the Province article was on Global. i won't read the Province.

backlash across BC is significant. not only do many many wear yoga pants many also wear fleece pj bottoms out and about.

we really don't care about perception vs comfort.

i guess it's a BC thing.


lagatta4
Offline
Joined: May 9 2013

Yes, it is a cultural difference. I certainly don't think gyms have any business telling people what to wear except for safety reasons and not damaging the floors or equipment (some shoes mark the floors and removing the marks damages the floors - I know that from working at the YMCA here).

It would be very strange to wear fleece pj bottoms out and about here. I saw a guy walking to the corner store in his pyjamas, and people were staring at him (I was careful not to, as it is very rude).

If there was a video report, it could well be body-shaming by honing in on people who are overweight, lumpy, out of shape or otherwise not catwalk material. I rarely watch TV.

Someone is buying the very expensive Lululemon stuff in BC, so I guess those wearers do care about perception


quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Quote:
The current guidelines for city recreational facilities simply say "appropriate, clean attire and indoor closed-toed footwear is mandatory."

The city interprets the guidelines to mean that men must always wear shirts, and that women and men must cover their midriffs, Badger explained.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/city-of-edmonton-reviewing-what-t...

Kind of a ridiculous interpretation, considering that in these same facilities there would be swimming pools that have people with their bellies visible.

it was on CTV 6pm news last night. they reported it was a new unadvertised development and showed the poster of Edmonton's rec facilities showing a belly as evidence at how new.

this really has me pissed. is it going to spread to pool wear too? are women going to be forced to wear 1 piece suits while men get the privilege of being topless?

what's with bellies all of sudden being taboo?

and though i don't go out with pj bottoms on or yoga pants i defend everyone's right to and not be shamed into conforming to a social norm.

people need to stop judging.

 

 


lagatta4
Offline
Joined: May 9 2013

Well obviously it is nobody's business. Some people will always judge, but it certainly must never be a directive. How about the regulations about people having to wear a shirt in restaurants (usually fast-foods and other casual restaurants). Are those legal? I'm sure "shoes" might be for public health and safety reasons.


quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

lagatta4 wrote:
It would be very strange to wear fleece pj bottoms out and about here. I saw a guy walking to the corner store in his pyjamas, and people were staring at him (I was careful not to, as it is very rude).

no stares here anywhere.

Quote:
If there was a video report, it could well be body-shaming by honing in on people who are overweight, lumpy, out of shape or otherwise not catwalk material. I rarely watch TV.

Someone is buying the very expensive Lululemon stuff in BC, so I guess those wearers do care about perception

no one much buys lululemon in BC. when it was bought out they didn't purchase the rights to the fabric. it was all about the fabric not the name.


quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

lagatta4 wrote:
Well obviously it is nobody's business. Some people will always judge, but it certainly must never be a directive. How about the regulations about people having to wear a shirt in restaurants (usually fast-foods and other casual restaurants). Are those legal? I'm sure "shoes" might be for public health and safety reasons.

shirts for public health reasons too. skin to surface contact transmitts fungus, bacteria and infection.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments