Planet Fitness Is Entry-Level Housing
Well, *analogous* to it
Here’s a Reddit thread on the subreddit “unpopular opinion” titled “Planet fitness is a fantastic gym.”
That is, apparently, an unpopular opinion, at least among, I guess, people who don’t sign up for and/or frequent Planet Fitness.
One of the comments agrees with the poster:
Planet Fitness isn’t for you or I or anyone who lifts/works out seriously. It’s for people who don’t know anything about fitness but want to learn, for casual fitness enthusiasts, for people who only do cardio, for people who can’t afford or don’t want to pay for a “real” gym, and everyone else who is intimidated by or just doesn’t want to go to a “real” gym.
And that’s why I wholeheartedly support Planet Fitness. It serves members of the community who otherwise might not want or be able to get to a gym.
I was reading about this because I recently signed up for Planet Fitness, just to have somewhere cheap and air conditioned to go for some exercise. And I find this really interesting.
The narrative about Planet Fitness is that it’s “not a real gym”—it’s designed for people who can’t or don’t want to work out but want to pat themselves on the back for joining a gym. Before COVID most locations even used to have a free pizza day, which perhaps was the company leaning into its schtick. Though rarely used, every branch has a jokey siren contraption—the “Lunk Alarm”—that a desk staffer can set off if someone is grunting too much or dropping weights—in other words, the chain discourages real, heavy working out and casts it as intimidating or being a show-off in order to make the lightweights feel better about themselves. Etc., etc. There’s a whole body of commentary from gym enthusiasts to this effect.
I think all of that comes down to one word—snobbery. Or maybe two words: snobbery and elitism. Or maybe three: snobbery, elitism, and condescension. You get the idea. I’m always sort of on the lookout for things that look and sound like NIMBYism but aren’t—i.e., elitist or exclusionary or gatekeeping attitudes that mirror the way NIMBYs talk about or think about housing.
I want to draw out the point that NIMBYism isn’t something exclusive to housing; despite all of the particulars there, it’s just one manifestation of a certain view of things. A view that mistakes one’s own preference for the objectively best thing, that looks down on people for wanting or needing something else, that views a desire for other options and possibilities as entitlement or whining and not, you know, a perfectly reasonable ask.
There’s something sort of like hazing going on among people who think like this—the desire to pass on discomfort or difficulty, perhaps to validate the discomfort or difficulty they underwent at some point. It’s sort of like a personal drive for excellence that subtly turns into a need to force everyone to cultivate that same excellence, in the same way, regardless of whether others have that drive themselves for that particular thing.
I wrote about this regarding the irrational dislike of pickleball. I got the sense that a lot of the dislike comes down to the fact that pickleball is fun, easily accessible, and casual. In other words, the point of sports is to cultivate athletic prowess by pushing past discomfort, not to enjoy yourself. There’s something both snobbish and puritanical there. And you see it everywhere. Really, everywhere. With outdoor dining or pedestrianized streets or pickleball or inexpensive, easy gyms. Or small vehicles, or small homes. Always this tendency to cast anything that people just enjoy, or that people without means can reach, as some kind of illegitimate indulgence.
Someone left a comment on that pickleball piece to the effect that they quoted part of it to their therapist to discuss. That’s really interesting, but I wasn’t surprised. So much of what we think of as policy or economic arguments are really psychological. That’s my point here: NIMBYism is at heart not an opinion on housing policy, but a miserly attitude regarding other people. And if one in one hundred people who absorbed or inherited that attitude look at it critically because of something I wrote, then there’s a point to all of this.
But back to Planet Fitness and my headline today: “Planet Fitness Is Entry-Level Housing.” Saying “Planet Fitness isn’t a real gym” is true objectively, in a narrow sense, but also not a real argument. It assumes we can just start climbing the ladder from the top. Something stripped down, simple, and inexpensive always has a role in society and the economy. It’s like saying “A starter home isn’t a McMansion.” Yeah, and your point is…? Of course a starter home isn’t a McMansion! They’re different products serving different people—or, importantly, the same people at different points in their lives—and a lot of people end up being able to upgrade to a bigger, nicer place precisely because the simple starter home was there when they needed it.
I’ll bet you a lot of fitness and workout enthusiasts started timidly, or with occasional gym visits, or with Planet Fitness, and decided they liked this and wanted something more intense. I bet you some pickleball players wanted a more refined, athletic challenge and made the jump to tennis. Most people, probably, don’t make that progression. That’s fine. But that progression is only possible for a lot of people when the whole range of options actually exists.
I wrote the other day about pluralism, and how a lot of us just sort of assume whatever we prefer is the best thing, or however we do something is the best way, etc. Simply the idea that other ways are valid can feel like an attack. Beneath the contempt and again beneath the fear is an insecurity. I write that not to critique others but also to recognize something in myself—there’s a challenge in keeping faith in your own decisions and beliefs while letting go of the idea that you must be right.
So that’s two themes here: one is that we need, but lack, a full “ladder” of choices in all sorts of realms (though I guess not fitness centers). The other is that perhaps one reason for that missing ladder is this combination of snobbery and insecurity.
Is this a point here, or am I reading too much into everything? Leave a comment and help me think through this.
Related Reading:
“I Like My Opinions, Why Would I Want New Ones?”
Thank you for reading! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekly subscribers-only piece, plus full access to the archive: over 1,000 pieces and growing. And you’ll help ensure more like this!
In one literal feature it is entry-level housing. Our local PF has a member who is homeless (lives in a van.) But his membership allows him use of a nice bath/shower facility that is open most of the time.
I think you’ve touched on a universal human tendency that tracks closely with tribalism and identity. This pattern emerges everywhere, and in every instance it deserves to be called out and scrutinized. Thank you.