Women’s only gyms are back (did they ever leave?) and the PINK vs. NOT-PINK debate continues

Last week, the New York Times, the paper of record, known for taking on the hard-hitting issues of our day, put a crack team of reporters to work on a riveting investigative story:

Honestly, I’m not sure women-only gyms ever went away. I used to go to a women-only gym in Boston called Healthworks, which has been in business since 1977. I started going there as a grad student on a very-cheapo membership. Since then, I bounced around various gyms and now spend my money for a monthly membership to my yoga studio, Artemis in Watertown.

But while I wasn’t paying much attention, the NY Times tells us the following happened to women’s gyms.

By 2003, Curves had become the largest fitness franchise in the world, and inspired other successful chains, with names like Slender Lady and Contours Express.

But by the 2010s, the 20th century model faltered, thanks in part to a younger generation who associated it with their moms or grandmothers. For many millennial gym-goers, boutique studios that attracted mostly women, like barre and Pilates studios, largely took the place of the women-only gym, said Shay Kostabi, co-founder of Fitcarma, an exercise industry consulting firm.

And yet, several members of the new women-only gyms said the difference between working out among mostly women and all women felt significant.

But recently, some women opened women-only gyms, complete with Barbie pink decor, and (in one case) pack-and-plays near the weight benches (not sure if baby is optional or included in gym experience).

Sadly, my expectations for searing revelations in this allegedly-news article were disappointed. The article ended with this cogent comment: “I think there’s a recognition that everyone that walks into that gym, they’re walking in with their stuff.”

Uh, okay. Agreed.

But lest you think that’s the whole story, fear not: the good folks in the NYT comments section picked up on the controversy bubbling just beneath the surface. Yes, I’m talking about PINK vs. NOT-PINK. I thought Team NOT-PINK would completely dominate. Here is a sample of some of their responses:

• for heaven’s sake, why do they have to be PINK?! I’m soooo sick of all-things-female having to be pink. It’s infantilizing. Knock if off, corporate America.
• I don’t need to work out in the Barbie mansion.
• Women only, yes. Pink equipment? Absolutely not.
• I don’t want to work out in a gym designed for a newborn baby girl.
• I despise pink! I have this beef with athletic apparel and shoe manufacturers, too: Not every woman wants to wear pale shades and pastels, people!
• Yes to everything, except pink.
• Fine concept. Did it really have to be pink?
• only gym I go to isn’t pink or purple. Just soothing greys.
• That Pepto Bismal pink which signifies “women” is ugh. I am all for women gyms, but surely it can be women-centered without being pinkified.
• Why does Barbie pink have to be the default color?

However, there was non-trivial pushback from Team PINK. And honestly, a few of the comments were somewhat persuasive:

• I would love to work out in the Barbie mansion!
• I think pink works because men typically hate it. So it serves to repel men who otherwise might try to join.
• I like pink.
• Did you know in the Victorian era, that pink was considered masculine for boys and blue was considered feminine for girls?
• What’s wrong with pink? It’s literally just a color.
• I would love a pink gym.
• What’s wrong with pink, anyway? These gyms look so much better than the scuffed white walls and fluorescent lights seen at most other gyms.

So readers, where do you stand on the PINK vs. NOT-PINK debate for women-only gyms? I thought I knew, but I must admit that perhaps women’s gyms do contain multitudes (of shades).