Yes, seriously. And the Wall Street Journal did a feature on it. (Note the subtitle of the video is "In Depth.")
Between declaring thin eyelashes a "condition" and an awareness month created around "chubby ankles," it seems that the micromanagement of women's body parts is becoming so much of a trend that soon, women will begin to hate literally every fiber of their being.
This is not to mention that the gym's campaign is a smack in the face to every awareness month that works towards, you know, saving lives and fighting injustice and stuff. Shame on Gold's, and on WSJ for actually covering this bullshit as news.
h/t to Jill, who has started her own campaign of sorts in response.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gold's Gym declares July "Cankles Awareness Month" .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15179
Goddamnit, that's my gym.
We need a resurgence of real hippie/punk/feminism.
I've listened in horror regarding women who feel they have to shave their pubes when I stopped shaving my legs and underarms some 35 years ago.
For me make up is moisturizer, a foomph of some blush and some light colored goop under my eyes if the circles are darker than usual.
I diet for health because being too over weight hurts my knees and not so I can be unrealistically skinny.
It is more than selling insecurity it is about turning women into consumer clones wasting huge bucks one junk that costs pennies to make. The biggest difference between the 2 dollar mascara and the hundred dollar one is the package.
Me... I'd rather buy a book or new lens, concert tickets, DVD almost anything than blow money on looking like a conformist clone.
I love everything you said, except I am hoping that your use of "diet" is simply misuse of a word and that you really just mean you eat nutritious foods. Not that you starve or deprive yourself to be skinny, because, well, that's going to do more damage to your body in the long run than staying overweight.
Please the idea that dieting, as in watching calories, fats and sugars is more harmful than being a hundred pounds overweight is dumb.
There is a big difference in wanting to lose weight instead of the ability to walk places and do things and to wear some ridiculously small jeans.
Sorry to be all up on, but "dumb" is ableist language, and there's nothing necessarily unhealthy about being fat:
Further reading on why "dumb" is ableist:
http://pizzadiavola.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/gov-palin-uses-ableist-insults/
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/06/privilege-and-ignorance-speak-volumes.html
Why being fat is not necessarily unhealthy:
http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/
Well, gee I was trying to be rational and agreeable. And yet you reduce yourself to calling me "dumb." I'm going to ignore that knee-jerk response and continue defending my stance.
Read Lessons from the Fat-O-Sphere and The Diet Myth. Those books are both incredible in debunking all of the drivel that we've been fed about weight, plus they give names of studies and all that to do some more background (Lessons is newer and thus would have more recent studies in it, but both are excellent). Plus the link that RMJ gave.
Bottom line: yo-yo dieting and self deprivation put more stress on your body than being overweight and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
Actually I'm pretty sure that the desire to lose weight and the desire to fit into some ridiculously small jeans are very closely related, unless your solution to the latter problem involves a sewing machine. Maybe I misread your comment?
Nobody ever died or ended up in a mental hospital because they were fat - but dieting has led a lot of people (mostly women) to both of those places!
"Dieting" is just about the least healthy thing you can do!
The word "diet" does not mean starving yourself, and nothing gets up my nose more than having to constantly qualify that.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with expecting that's what people mean as you're often correct, but describing eating the correct amount and types of food for your body to feel good is the CORRECT way to use the term.
Everyone has a diet, because your diet is what you eat, and being on a diet can mean anything from eating a carrot a day to cutting out wheat because you're intolerant to it.
Sorry, had to nitpick.
Arg, I used "correct" way too much. Whoops!
Yes, everyone has a diet. That's the official definition. But her comment appears to use the colloquial version, which generally DOES include restrictive (often disordered) eating habits that put undue strain on the body.
I wear makeup and shave my legs sometimes, and I'm not a conformist clone.
Furthermore, I think that language is slightly hateful. It blames the victim (consumer) in this situation who does wear lots of makeup, diet, worry about her "cankles", whatever. She is, after all, made to feel that she must, that she doesn't have a choice.
She's a person, not a clone.
Being a consumer does not make one a victim.
Consumers do have a choice. I do not buy into the idea that we cannot make educated decisions about products we see. All of us are able to analyze advertising and see it for what it is, and presumably most of us grew up exposed to this type of media. If we assume that others are "victims" who cannot be blamed, then are we better than they are because we saw the light?
Victim is poor word choice that robs a lot of women of agency (including me, actually). Apologies.
But, these "choices" don't exist in a vacuum. Yes, we exercise agency in how we present ourselves. But when we're told, from day one, that we are told to act, look, present ourselves according to a specific standard....well, it's no wonder we conform.
"Clone" is dehumanizing language. Women who interpret or attempt to scale impossible beauty standards are only trying to exist and operate successfully in a world that constantly attempts to police their presentation.
"...But, these 'choices' don't exist in a vacuum. Yes, we exercise agency in how we present ourselves. But when we're told, from day one, that we are told to act, look, present ourselves according to a specific standard....well, it's no wonder we conform...
"...Women who interpret or attempt to scale impossible beauty standards..."
Or for that matter, scale impossible plain-looking standards. Some of us have given up on scaling the beauty standards of where we live, and still have to spend time, money, and effort to be considered barely plain instead of even uglier/homelier/more hideous/etc. than that. As Nancy Etcoff said in Survival of the Prettiest,
"...are only trying to exist and operate successfully in a world that constantly attempts to police their presentation."
Especially when when we don't inherit enough real estate to live off the land, and instead need to be tolerated by other people in order to survive.
Think about it:
If every potential employer or client thinks you're too ugly to do business with, then you can't get currency from then in exchange for your goods and services.
If every potential barter customer at the bazaar thinks you're too ugly to do business with, then you can't get goods or services from them in exchange for your goods and services.
Even if one counts housespouse as a career, if every potential spouse thinks you're too ugly to marry (or too ugly to stay married to if he or she doesn't know what you look like until after an arranged wedding), then being a housespouse and living on what your breadwinner brings home isn't an option either.
If you can't get currency or goods or services from anyone else to exchange for food, and you can't eat your own goods or services because you don't have access to enough land to farm/fish/gather/hunt/ranch food directly, then you can't earn a living. Meanwhile, not everyone who can't earn a living has enough loved ones and/or other supportive family and/or societal safety nets to survive.
Took the words out of my mouth. I resent the notion that b/c I like my bald vagina, use no clump mascara, and wear the occasional neon pink eyeliner, that I'm some kind of clone. Maybe I just like that stuff, b/c, well, I like it. Not because I want to look like everyone else.
Also, "Cankles Awareness Month". Gold's Gym, WTF?
I like my bald vagina too. In fact, all of the vaginas I've met have been pleasantly hairless. Vulvas, on the other hand....
Yeah, a bit hateful on the "conformist clone" comment. I hope you can grasp the concept that, while spending money on concert tickets may give YOU pleasure, I think it's a damn waste of money to blow 60 bucks to stand around smashed up against sweaty, smelly people listening to atrociously loud music. Which doesn't matter, of course. You can spend your money on whatever you want. But don't chastise women who'd rather buy makeup.
Also, when did buying makeup and buying DVDs become mutually exclusive?
And, where on earth did you find 100 dollar mascara? Sign me up!
Do you realize that your comment sort of sets yourself up as the standard by which things should measured, right? So YOU don't shave, and therefore people who do horrify you, but you DO wear blush and undereye concealer. And therefore, that is what's acceptable. You DO realize that there are people who would consider you a "consumer clone" for beliving that darkness under your eyes and pale cheeks are a problem, right? Doesn't sound very "real punk" to me.
Here's a tip - just like you've figured out what your boundaries are, other people will navigate theirs just fine without needing you to feel horror for them.
It's for the job. I don't wear make up when I am not working.
"...So YOU don't shave, and therefore people who do horrify you..."
For that matter, what about women and girls who can't display leg hair because they don't grow it in the first place? It's not always obvious how someone's hairless skin got hairless. This varies by ethnicity somewhat (my ethnicity is hairier than average, some others are less hairy than average), so shunning someone for not having hairy legs is racist too...
"Real hippie/punk/feminism" =/= making the same choices as you. I know feminist punk girls who dress "normally," shave their legs, wear makeup, etc, but are not afraid to punch some misogynistic harasser in the face or rock the fuck out at a hardcore show. The beauty in punk is that you can interpret it however you want.
As for makeup-wearing making you a bad feminist? Please, that shit has been covered so many times. Here's an idea: perhaps we should judge women less on what they look like and more on the content of their ideas. Example: Ann Coulter could stop shaving her pits and grow a blue mohawk and she would still be an anti-feminist trainwreck. I would rather spend time with a radical-thinking "clone" than a fashionable hippie/punk any day.
How much money does a woman have to spend a year on beauty products/treatments/clothes/etc until she crosses the line from real hippie feminist to conformist consumer clone? 'Cos I know some ladies who don't wear moisturizer or blush or gloop neither, and who get all their clothes second-hand or third-hand or who-knows-how-many-hand, and who wear their hair in cuts and styles that have to be cleaned less often; that's usually the kind of woman I think of when I think of feminists rejecting consumerism. Does shampoo and conditioner count? Is it a mark against black women if they spend money to straighten their hair so that their mostly-white coworkers don't give them the stinkeye at their office jobs? Does it even out if I wear no makeup at all for everyday, but go whole hog for special occasions? Does acne medication count as a beauty product? I would be curious to see the full points sheet for this.
BTW I would be all for a similar resurgence, but I think we could do without being judgmental of women who wear makeup or shave or buy pretty clothes or whatever. There are very few women who reject all beauty rituals, and by your own admission you aren't one of them. It would be a very small club unless we changed the rules from "no beauty rituals" to "no beauty rituals that you don't wanna do".
'It would be a very small club unless we changed the rules from "no beauty rituals" to "no beauty rituals that you don't wanna do".'
THIS. Feminists must understand that women are intelligent, perceptive actors in this economy, and that women can decide for themselves what they really like to spend money on and what makes them uncomfortable. Women who buy conventional beauty products are not dupes!
Let's also remember that cankles actually have NOTHING to do with your weight or size or fitness level. It's genetic. If you have thick ankles relative to your body type, you will have those no matter what size you are. If you gain or lose 100 pounds your ankles will still be roughly the same size in comparison to the rest of you. I happen to have very skinny ankles and wrists compared to the rest of me, and they are always that way - and I've been many different sizes during my life, but my ankles have stayed relatively consistent.
So, fuck, they're trying to sell memberships with something that their services can't do ANYTHING about. It's false advertisement.
Uhh... if you watched the piece that's EXACTLY what the trainer said. Canckles aren't necessarily due to being overweight, but that they are genetic.
Can't we please stop being so horrified every time a company comes out with a stupid marketing campaign to sell gym memberships/clothing/make-up?? They are never going to stop, so can't we agree to exercise what agency we do have over our consumerism (because face it, we are all consumers and will be for a long time)and move on to more important issues? By making a big deal about issues such as these (and I recognize the irony of this statement because I am being just as bad by replying to this comment stream) we are just feeding the animal that is insecurity.
It's like that Simpson's episode: if you don't look at the monsters (i.e. advertisement) they will just go away...
No. No we can't. It's not just about what we buy or don't by. Advertising shapes our thoughts. It shapes how we view the world. It even shapes our language.
That should be "buy," obviously.
I like a lot of what you said.
Advertising is free speech, nothing more, which of course means that a good percentage of it will be bullshit. Doesn't mean we should abolish it. It means we need to get better at navigating it and testing it for truth and responding to it or rejecting it. Consumers have agency, and need to exercise it. It's no different than not voting, and then complaining.
And, I'm sorry, the "advertising shapes our world and our thoughts" stuff is really histrionic and alarmist. Advertising used to tout products' features and efficacy. Know why it doesn't anymore? BECAUSE PEOPLE STOPPED RESPONDING AND BUYING. The masses grew immune to that. Many advertising strategists in fact believe that the lifestyle/status-promoting ads we see now are in fact no longer effective, either. See "The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of P.R."
Well I was at work on a speaker-less computer when I saw it so I didn't watch it before commenting. My brain went gym ad = targeting weight. Which, even if it was off in this case, is generally a correct assumption.
Doesn't make my comment any less correct.
Sadly this made me study my ankles to figure out if I have this "issue". I don't know. They just looks like ankles to me. Can we obsess over and create awareness about something else, like poverty, racism, sexism or homophobia instead? Please?
This bothers me because i've had bigger ankles all of my life. For me it's genetic....my mom has the exact same ankles and so did her grandmother. I'm healthy, I exercise, and I eat well (most of the time). I just happen to have big ankles. If you feel my ankles, they are totally solid - there is nothing I can do about them...it's just the way my legs and ankles are structured. I came to terms with this a long time ago. It doesn't stop me from wearing capri pants or the shoes that I want (even if they aren't "flattering" to my ankles). I don't care. And you know what? No one ever notices my ankles anyways. Articles like this bother me, because I could see a younger version of myself reading this and getting very upset thinking that somehow there's something wrong with me and that I better do something about it quick.
You and me both. My calves are thick, too. I hate when people/the fashion idustry/the patriarchy tells me I shouldn't wear skirts or shorts or capris. I have every right to bare my legs just like anyone else.
So lovely that we're eroticizing and policing joints now. What's next, sexy elbows?
My bet would be knees, first.
"Ladies! Ever worn the extra long shorts to cover up those nasty, bony bits? Wondered what to do about all those unattractive gouges and dips? Want a more healthier, sexier knee? Try THIS, BRAND NEW product, sure to put that extra ounce of perfection into your step!..."
Perhaps it'll be the instep...
Flat-footed? Hide your shame with new! Arch-Enhancers!
"Tired of being mistaken for a man: longing for a solution? After the boob job, try NEW, hip-expanders! For the low, low price of $19.99 (in 14 easy payments, no less! Plus shipping and handling of course), YOU can have the hips you've always dreamed of!
The way it works is far too technical to explain in this commercial to a WOMAN, but we assure you that it's as easy as bungee jumping into fresh cement once you buy it! C'mon: do you really want to be stuck with your pitiful MAN-HIPS all your life, when you could use our product and be all that you can be (credit card required)? There's no time to wait: there could be men ogling you RIGHT NOW if you'd only called to get your sexy new hips today!"
God, I just hope it's not knuckles. My knuckles are so fat! They like, stick out from the rest of my hand and stuff! I'm going on a six-week juice diet to try and lose some of that unsightly hand flab. Nobody wants to date a girl with fat knuckles (f*ckles?).
"Tired of those mountains on your back? Sick of those unsightly spine bumps? Look no further than SpineTrim(tm)! What's a little paralysis in the face of smoother skin?"
...this could go on FOREVER.
You're exactly right - there are actually cosmetic procedures for "unsightly" knees...apparently Demi Moore spent roughly $9,000 getting a knee "lift".
Satire stops being fun when it's actually true.
That's when it becomes terrifying. :(
I wonder if Bev Francis' Gold's gym in Syosset is actually pushing this crap. (Bev was the first woman in the world to bench press 300 lbs, and very likely the strongest woman in the world for a good many years. Now she owns a Gold's franchise right outside NYC.) I'd be pretty stunned and disappointed if she actually did it.
By the way, this is a really dumb promotion from the perspective of the bottom line, since as others have noted above, the size of your ankles isn't something exercise controls. So all they're doing is setting up members to fail. I don't see how that helps business.
WTF? We're blaming a gym for running commercials on body sculpting? I believe that's the business they're in.
The Today show ran a segment on this yesterday morning. I thought it was odd because I'd always assumed cankles were mostly genetic, but they presented medical evidence that it was a combination of genetic, lifestyle, pregnancy and aging issues. So perhaps this is something exercise can affect, or perhaps not. From this backlash sounds like its at least a good marketing ploy by Gold's.
Not really! We're attacking a gym for taking another part of a woman's body and disembodying it, creating fear about its specific presentation, and pathologizing it.
But, yes, that's my point, that's what they do. "Guys build your pecs! Women firm that tush! Big guns and a six pack on sale here! Guaranteed you'll like your new body in 6 months or you get your old body back!!!" I can think of precisely 1 conversation I've ever had about "cankles" in my life--in other words the type of niche concern to occur to people likely to frequent gyms. And I'm a gym rat, I hang out with people who obsess over muscles only doctors have heard of.
I worry about people like Paris Hilton pathologizing Size 4 or more's, not Gold's who's trying to turn an honest buck reminding people who like to work out why it is they like to work out.
Body sculpting and ankles? Wha? When I lift, I do things to target each of my muscle groups all the way down to my calves...but pray tell just how you can "sculpt" your ankles.
I was always under the impression that such a desire would require a scalpel and a steady hand at one point.
Kim C/Alixana--I don't know how much you can reduce it--probably a good bit if you don't work out at all, probably not much if you already work out regularly. The doctor on the Today show said "plastic surgery was the only way to really reduce it." One doctor said it was 30% of his liposuction practice...Dunno, I'm no doctor but just from observation it seems to me that 60% of it is pure genetics.
Perhaps then we should have "Beer Gut Awareness Month" for men?
Not to derail, but isn't that every month? I think the 'health/fitness' industry in general does a pretty awesome job of making both genders feel shitty about their bodies.
Advertising for men just isn't so specific, fixated on random parts, and... random. Obama arms, cankles, what will be the next 'you are ugly because...' body part fad, any guesses? We could start a betting pool.
Not really.
For heterosexual men, body image is way less important - men are primarily judged by the size of our wallets and bank accounts, and not much else.
Unless a man is extremely skinny or extremely fat, he is not going to be judged based on his appearance.
But, for women, on the other hand, they are judged every single day based on every part of their bodies from head to toe, from "cellulite" to "back fat" to "cankles" to "shiny skin" to fill in the blank... and all of these so called "flaws" can be "cured" by spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on unnecessary junk.
Heterosexual men don't face anything like that onslaught of body hypercriticism and abuse that women get bombarded with from early childhood.
There are whole industries - from makeup to dieting to plastic surgery - based on this systematic psychic terrorism against women, and the consumer demand created by women driven to measure up to that fascistic body standard by any means necessary, no matter how expensive or self destructive it might be.
There isn't anything nearly as equivalent to that in the straight male world!
um, what dudes are you hanging out with?
'cause ***all*** of my male friends have insecurity about their appearances, to one degree or another. every one of them uses at least one specialized health/beauty product, most use many more.
i went dancing last weekend, and, i swear, the men were as made up as the women. waxed chests, artfully sculpted hair, fancy/uncomfortable-looking clothes, lots of cologne.
and most of the women i know are very judgmental about men's looks. i had a co-worker who said, "my ex-husband looks like jfk, jr, and i just can't date someone if he isn't that attractive." she was lovely to work with. *retch*
i don't know if men are equally insecure about how they look as women are, or experience discrimination based on their attractiveness to the same degree women do, but i think it is patently false to say that men aren't judged by their looks.
Totally agree with cattrack2. Are people seriously offended by this? Please, lighten up. First off, it's funny. Second...what's wrong with wanting hot ankles. You absolutely CAN do something about your cankles with exercise and excuse me if I want hot legs. And skippy...thats a big fat yes for beer gut awareness month.
What's our problem? They're creating an artificial standard of beauty, shaming women for their bodies... I'm sorry, do you think you're at askmen.com or something?
This is a feminist website that is critical of the expectations put upon women by companies looking to make them feel bad or make a buck.
And please, leave your misogynistic "lighten up" arguments in 1968, where they belong.
Completely agree with RMJ.
Not interested in hearing a feminist critique of sexist media? Don't come to a website that specializes in feminist critiques of sexist media.
Wow! Way to tell people who are spending time in a feminist community that you don't fucking want them here!
I want hot legs too...but I'm not going to force that on other women. Does that make me not feminist, too?
Yes, I laughed when I first heard it to. In theory the headline is funny. But not so much when you find out that women are taking this headline seriously, and finding one more thing about their bodies to hate, know what I mean?
To add, if our society wasn't rife with advertising and messages designed to make women hate their bodies and view them as less than beautiful, than the "cankles awareness" thing would be a slightly, off -putting joke, and not taken seriously. However, we live in a place where women are having vaginal reconstruction surgery, knee lifts, and are getting their anuses bleached. It's hard not to see how this could be a problem.
it really hurts my insides when you use anus and bleach in the same sentence.
"Clone" isn't a "bad" word. It describes the "need" to conform to unrealistic standards set up for women by a male dominated society.
The freedom embraced by women in the 60's was far foo frightening. It meant that women could actually go their own way, and still live fulfilling, rich lives.
Reagan, and his ilk, promoted the backlash that persists until today. Jusr look at the way male "culture" has deteriorated, how this false "macho", lack of thought or sensitivity, colors our entire society.
"Clone" describes the way many men and women act, and live, today. It takes the ability to self examine, acts of self awareness, self criticism, to break the bonds our society has set up for us.
Slavish adherence to these unrealistic standards sets both men and women up for failure, disappointment.
Another reason to be happy that I let my membership run out last week. Free gym at college > Gold's.
Jezebel summed up how I feel about this pretty well.
http://jezebel.com/5322744/oh-just-shut-up-about-the-cankles-already
Jezebel summed up how I feel about this pretty well.
http://jezebel.com/5322744/oh-just-shut-up-about-the-cankles-already
My favorite part of the article was when having "cankles" became a medical condition. As in, something MUST be medically "wrong" with you if your calves don't happen to drop off into a crevasse before your ankles are exposed.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure some women (and men too---I noticed this article and the video were directed 100% at women) are just built differently, without having any medical "problem" to watch for.
Silly WSJ.
My cankles actually are a medical condition--a recent pregnancy left me with venous insufficiency, and my lower legs and ankles swell terribly. Compression hose help, but don't completely alleviate the condition. (I'm having laser surgery next month to fix it.)
So, I'm going to have to give Gold's Gym a pass on this one. This is a quote from the website http://saynotocankles.com/
It's a tongue-in-cheek shot at America's obsession with perfection and we hope consumers realize its broader objective... to promote a healthy lifestyle through fitness. The truth is that people (and their ankles) come in all shapes and sizes... there is no such thing as "perfect body" and there shouldn't be. However, if you are interested in shaping or toning various parts of your body there are proven ways to do so.
Hmmm. This does make me look at this a little differently. However, did Gold's Gym actually put that little disclaimer out there b/c they believe it, or b/c this is their way of guarding themselves against the inevitable backlash? Nonetheless, thank you for the link.
i'm actually still trying to figure out what a cankle actually is. i probably shouldn't even bother, should i? ....
It's supposedly when you don't have a "real ankle", i.e., it doesn't narrow much, so the calf seems to be attached directly to your foot (calf-ankle = cankle). When I was in high school it was one of those insults girls would use when they wanted to call another girl fat, but that girl wasn't even remotely fat.
Oh boy! more things for me to be ashamed of! Big ankles! Oh I have large nipples too. Found out recently that this is "gross". (pfft and here i thought i was just sexy)
Part of me (my large ankles?) is annoyed, because really now. like people need to nit pick this much and make themselves and others upset over something that isnt even registered as being attractive or unnatrractive. I thought thicker ankles is good, doesnt it mean you have good joint support?
On the other hand, this is even sillier, with all the suffering in the world, and our own crappy economy and shrinking rights, we have to worry about CANKLES? puhleaze. They should stop worrying about their cankles and see a doctor stat on removing their heads from their asses. THAT is a big problem!
"I thought thicker ankles is good, doesnt it mean you have good joint support?"
This is what I thought, too. IANAD, but I always figured people with thicker ankles would be less likely to break them, 'cause you've got built-in protective padding there. The idea of resting my whole body weight on these tiny skinny ankles is a bit scary. I guess if that was the way my body was built to work, it would work. But I'm very clumsy and I've never so much as sprained my ankle in my life, so I think I'll stick with what I've got now thanks.
You know, this sort of body-shaming just adds more fuel to the fire for me. I'm in college studying Sport & Exercise Studies and am preparing for a career as a personal trainer and fitness instructor. I've already got this great vision in my head of opening my own studio for "feminist fitness!" :) I can't wait to give women a place to go where exercise and nutrion are for strength, health, and energy instead of a way for you to beat your body into submitting to beauty standards that do not fit for everyone's body.
Spelling correction: I meant "nutrition", not "nutrion".
I'm a grammar-lover. Ha ha.
Roxy Sock'em i would go to your gym in a heartbeat!
Sign me up!!! That's fantastic.
"Feminist Fitness: because feeling great beats feeling shame any day!"
Can there actaully be real weight training, with actually heavy weight? And real olympic lifting?None of this "men should do high weight low rep, women should do high rep low weight" bullshit.
YES. When I do curls, I pick up my twenty pound weights and struggle through ten reps: I'd really rather not spend a couple minutes with just 8 pounds, thanks.
My impression of Gold's has always been that of a place where appearance is paramount, kind of like GloboGym in "Dodgeball." So I can't really see why this is surprising. There are plenty of Average Joe-like gyms out there as an alternative. I personally prefer my local YMCA. Everyone can choose the kind of atmosphere they want to work out in. No doubt some people want a place that declares Cankles Awareness Month, and that is where my annoyance lies. Gold's is probably just marketing to their target audience.
I've heard of some Gold's Gyms with tanning salon services inside. Talk about vanity.
I think most large gyms do - at least, Urban Active, Lifestyle, and Lifetime all do.
This brings to mind a discussion I had a few yeas ago with a friend who had ovarian cancer. She had her ovaries and tumor removed and went through chemo. She confessed to me that the biggest thing she was worried about was losing her hair on her head, eyebrows and eyelashes.
She said she felt so stupid for thinking this especially when most women who have ovarian cancer die. I tried to tell her not to feel bad but I began to think how much women are programed to think about our looks all the time. I must say that this experience helped me to just be happy the way I am. I'm not perfect and every now and then I get caught up in the latest dig at a woman's--like "cankles" -- but I try to remember exactly why is it that a woman should be overly concerned about her looks. Is it to attract a man? Is it to get a better job?
Took the words out of my mouth. I resent the notion that b/c I like my bald vagina, no clump mascara, and occasional neon pink eyeliner, that I'm some kind of clone. Maybe I just like that stuff, b/c, well, I like it. Not because I want to look like everyone else.
Also, "Cankles Awareness Month". Gold's Gym, WTF?
oops this was originally supposed to be in response to RMJ.
Gross. I am horribly disgusted in the Wall Street Journal for covering this as if it's actually newsworthy.