Gent-Wevelgem unveils 'Podium Misters' for this year's women's race

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Shouldn't we be asking the female cyclists what they'd prefer?

Personally speaking I couldn't give a hoot either way.

Why should it only be a matter for female cyclists? What about female non-cyclists? And male cyclists? Outdated gender biases affect everyone at a cultural level, even if you don't realise it.

Women get the worst of it, but apathy and a laissez-faire attitude from men only promote it, unfortunately.

willvousden wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Shouldn't we be asking the female cyclists what they'd prefer?

Personally speaking I couldn't give a hoot either way.

Why should it only be a matter for female cyclists? What about female non-cyclists? And male cyclists? Outdated gender biases affect everyone at a cultural level, even if you don't realise it.

In order of your questions...

Because they are the ones who will be most directly affected. Some might find it patronising, some may find it embarrassing, some might think it's fantastic. I'm not a female professional cyclist so I just don't know.

I'm not sure how much interest most non-cycling females would have in this matter, but it's a reasonable point; let's ask them too.

Male cyclists can of course express an opinion, but like I say, it's the pro females who will be most directly affected.

The "Outdated gender biases..."statement sounds impressive, and you're right, but personally speaking I don't see podium girls or boys (particularly the way they are presented in cycling), as showing any form of bias beyond the fact that the work only goes to reasonably attractive people - although on the Tour of Britain last year...

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

willvousden wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Shouldn't we be asking the female cyclists what they'd prefer?

Personally speaking I couldn't give a hoot either way.

Why should it only be a matter for female cyclists? What about female non-cyclists? And male cyclists? Outdated gender biases affect everyone at a cultural level, even if you don't realise it.

In order of your questions...

Because they are the ones who will be most directly affected. Some might find it patronising, some may find it embarrassing, some might think it's fantastic. I'm not a female professional cyclist so I just don't know.

I'm not sure how much interest most non-cycling females would have in this matter, but it's a reasonable point; let's ask them too.

Male cyclists can of course express an opinion, but like I say, it's the pro females who will be most directly affected.

The "Outdated gender biases..."statement sounds impressive, and you're right, but personally speaking I don't see podium girls or boys (particularly the way they are presented in cycling), as showing any form of bias beyond the fact that the work only goes to reasonably attractive people - although on the Tour of Britain last year...

The problem with gender bias is that individual instances like this tend to be minor (and therefore easily dismissed) but they're symptoms of a bigger – but hidden – cultural problem.

If this were the only example of gender bias then you're right – it would hardly be worth talking about. But unfortunately it's one of many that pop up in all areas of life; they just don't appear to be linked, which makes it difficult to deal with. It's easily missed, too, unless you're on the receiving end (and even then, it's so ingrained in our society that it can just be mistaken as "normal").

The only way to address the cause is to talk about it openly despite people dismissing it as "not a big deal" and to shut it down whenever it does happen.

Besides, we shouldn't just ignore a problem because we're not the ones who are affected by it! What happened to standing up for others?

willvousden wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

willvousden wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Shouldn't we be asking the female cyclists what they'd prefer?

Personally speaking I couldn't give a hoot either way.

Why should it only be a matter for female cyclists? What about female non-cyclists? And male cyclists? Outdated gender biases affect everyone at a cultural level, even if you don't realise it.

In order of your questions...

Because they are the ones who will be most directly affected. Some might find it patronising, some may find it embarrassing, some might think it's fantastic. I'm not a female professional cyclist so I just don't know.

I'm not sure how much interest most non-cycling females would have in this matter, but it's a reasonable point; let's ask them too.

Male cyclists can of course express an opinion, but like I say, it's the pro females who will be most directly affected.

The "Outdated gender biases..."statement sounds impressive, and you're right, but personally speaking I don't see podium girls or boys (particularly the way they are presented in cycling), as showing any form of bias beyond the fact that the work only goes to reasonably attractive people - although on the Tour of Britain last year...

The problem with gender bias is that individual instances like this tend to be minor (and therefore easily dismissed) but they're symptoms of a bigger – but hidden – cultural problem.

If this were the only example of gender bias then you're right – it would hardly be worth talking about. But unfortunately it's one of many that pop up in all areas of life; they just don't appear to be linked, which makes it difficult to deal with. It's easily missed, too, unless you're on the receiving end (and even then, it's so ingrained in our society that it can just be mistaken as "normal").

The only way to address the cause is to talk about it openly despite people dismissing it as "not a big deal" and to shut it down whenever it does happen.

Besides, we shouldn't just ignore a problem because we're not the ones who are affected by it! What happened to standing up for others?

But we are talking about it; we just don't all agree. You write really intelligently, but that does not mean your assertions are correct.

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

But we are talking about it; we just don't all agree. You write really intelligently, but that does not mean your assertions are correct.

He does write well, though for it to be effective people need to take the time to read it properly.

His statements on this matter, however well argued, cannot be 'correct' or otherwise. It is an ethical argument; that is why we don't agree.

What makes discussions like this more bearable (and worth the effort) is when people resist the urge to slag off the opposing view and think about what they are saying. So far we're doing reasonably well on that score.

birzzles wrote:

We should aim for a world in which pretty people have no advantages simply because they are good looking

Well, that'd be great..but on the other hand, everyone has different skills or attributes. If you have academic ability, business sense, or a manual skill, good for you. If looks are the one thing you have going for you, why should you be destined for a shitty standard of living ? Our genes (mostly) define us, it's simply luck as to who gets the long and the short straw (and that's speaking as someone who's been described as 'nice, but he's working class', with a higher educational attainment than the person that originated that quote).

Of course, there is another career alternative for someone that's attractive and little else, if you think the oldest profession is the only one they deserve to be in without a decent option, do tell..

stumps wrote:

if anyone has some problem with it don't watch the presentation. It happens in numerous sports all over the world so cycling is no different.

"look the other way". Seriously? Oh stumps, you disappoint me.

Do you say the same about domestic violence? Or doping?

I know that having podium girls isn't a crime but it harks back to the days of beauty pageants. It reinforces the idea that women's purpose is to be useful only for their looks; to be leered at, flutter their eyelashes, kiss a sweaty cyclist and maybe have their arse groped. It reinforces the primitive drag-her-back-to-the-cave stereotypical image that is seriously out of date.

The women I want to see on the podium and in the media are the ones who won the (equally interesting) women's race.

djpalmer32 wrote:

Need a way of reporting comments. The language in the first post is totally inappropriate. This website is probably viewed by children and that sort of language is not called for. Road.cc please can you do something about this.

Viewed by children? More like thousands of grumpy middle aged men if the comments are anything to go by.

Hmmm, did I miss something?

Rich71 wrote:

Keep digging the hole you fucking morons, faux gender equality on the podium is really going to cover your hairy 1970s misogynastic backsides from the opprobrium that is surely on its way to you bunch of omerta cheating turds
Crawl back into your fucking caves you neanderthal knuckle dragging fucking apes

I wish you wouldn't sit on the fence. Tell us what you really think!

Rich71 wrote:

Keep digging the hole you fucking morons, faux gender equality on the podium is really going to cover your hairy 1970s misogynastic backsides from the opprobrium that is surely on its way to you bunch of omerta cheating turds
Crawl back into your fucking caves you neanderthal knuckle dragging fucking apes

Having read this and your comment on the bike box review immediately before I turned to this page I am worried about your anger management issues.