YMCA v. Barrie AffirmativeDebate

In the case of Anderson V. YMCA of Barrie, I will prove there were no grounds for discrimination based on sex


The fitness facilities in Barrie offer fitness for both men and women, and of course, women only. In the case of Anderson V. the YMCA of Barrie, Anderson and O’Neill brought the complaint that women were unable to buy premium memberships. We’re talking about the YMCA, which stands for Young Men’s Christian Association, women were still able to use the facilities and they had women’s change rooms and shower facilities available. The only difference was that they lacked amenities such as an additional change room facility, including perhaps a sauna and such other things offered with premium memberships. This would not prohibit them from the use of the facility itself, which is really the main intention for going, or at least it should be. When I searched an online directory for fitness centers in Barrie, 12 out of the 34 fitness centers were for Women ONLY! The others were all for both men and women, such as Allendale Recreation Center. I challenge you to find even 6 fitness centers in one city that are men’s only, which would be half of what I found for women’s only. It was quite easy to find 12 women’s only, and those that I counted were only those obvious ones, whose name clearly stated it was for women only, such as: Ladies workout Express, and ExpressFit for Women. I did not see one out of the 34 that only offered fitness only for men.

Women were allowed into the YMCA, which was a step forward for an organization that was men’s only to begin with, and a sign of non-discrimination compared to the YWCA, who is still closing the doors to men. Having a women’s changing facility, and opening all of its programs to women is expressing equality. The fact of building a premium facility meant only to provide further luxury services and amenities which are above and beyond the necessities of the YMCA’s members. Building these facilities would bring about large expenses, not to mention the quite major renovation.

Furthermore, the YMCA defended the non-existence of a Women’s Plus facility on the basis that women members, when surveyed, had not expressed an interest in one. This information came straight from the case file. Clearly, if only Anderson and O’Neill wanted this expensive renovation, the demand would not have permitted its construction.

So with this, there was no reason that the YMCA of Barrie should have been forced to create extra facilities and amenities for women, when there were plenty of other availabilities in the area.

Curves, fitness for women is yet another institution (also found in Barrie) that only offers fitness for women, however also provide a separate facility for men under the same corporation, BUT not curves itself. This is just like the YMCA by the fact that they have a YWCA, except for the fact that Curves doesn’t let men into the facility, yet the YMCA (young men’s Christian association) lets women into their facilities. The YWCA’s in Kitchener for example are for women and children only. They do not provide services for men equal to the services for women. So I bring about a question, wasn’t this case supposed to be about EQUALITY?

Adding to this, institutions have rights of their own. They are able to offer their services to specific areas of the public. If you dictated what the YMCA had to provide as far as services, then you would have to follow through with this precedent for countless other organizations and institutions. Let’s just take a look at any women’s fitness centers, should they have to build facilities for men? Or how about an even a broader aspect, we saw a women play on the PGA Tour for golf, yet men are definitely not aloud to go on the WPGA Tour where there is surly money to be made for numerous men. This would also go for countless other sporting organizations. And how about the United Negro College Fund, should they not be forced to provide funds for whites?


Allot comes down to institutional right. Institutions have the right to provide specific services, aimed towards certain areas of the public. Forcing an institution to provide services based on a certain sex goes against the institutions rights to focus their services towards a particular area of the community. Again it comes back to the fact that there are many other institutions that do so, and aren’t penalized for it. This is what was violated for the YMCA, and so therefore including all the other particulars, there were no solid grounds for making the complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION


This case involves the principals of affirmative action. However, Affirmative action groups are discriminatory. So if Anderson and O’Neill claimed they were discriminated against, bringing in such affirmative action to force the YMCA into renovation would further spoils institutional rights. That is the real discrimination, telling an institution that they have to change simply because the complainants are women.

At that I rest my case

Thank you Madame/ Mr. speaker