No more podium girls at the Tour de France?

davel wrote:

@alan: them's a lot of words to reach (I think) the conclusion that my post did - women have had it rough for a very long time. My take on it is that if knuckle-draggers don't like the way it's going now, that's kind of tough shit. Would be interesting to see what the universal barometer of A Good Thing reads... Is Valbrona laying an egg over it? Totally agree with your Mum custody point. I wonder (hope) whether it's changing too, though: a couple I know (parents of one of my kid's friends) have divorced in the last few weeks. Dad seems a wet lettuce but went for 50/50 custody and Mum, after initial knee-jerking, relented... Went through with no drama and was all civil. Probably a different story if it was contested, and I know a few families that have been really bruised through the whole thing, but if you can actually do right by your kids and try not to use the courts as the place to continue your bickering, they seem (in my limited experience) to look favourably on that.

Picking up on the second partof your post, what I have seen (but thankfully not had to personally experience), would suggest the courts are completely rigged and men are all considered peado, abusing monsters until they can prove otherwise.

And I understand why. If a woman makes an accusation, the relevant officials have to take it seriously, they have to, what is the alternative? Who wants to be the official that gave the benefit of doubt and gets it wrong. 

So its still completely rigged. It requires all parties to play with a straight bat, but we all know that is very hard to do when you throw in a bunch of raw emotion into the equation. 

Crampy wrote:

Nah, this is totally fair.

Those women who choose to make a legitimate living by working as podium hostesses, working p.r, marketing, advertising and generally being well turned out, groomed and easy on the eye obviously have no right to that living, seeing as they are so obviously traumatised by latent internalised mysoginy and have no idea that they are sending out the wrong message to civilisation at large.

They should be ashamed of themselves and should be suitably punished. In this case by losing thier legitimate income in order to further the feminist agenda. Perhaps they should go get an education, preferably in the humanities or social sciences. 

Bitches.

You do realise that PR is essentially journalism, marketing encompasses a huge range of digital media campaign planning and the likes, and advertising is just something you've made up.

Now back to the cave with the dead antelope...

BrokenBootneck wrote:

Anyone remember this?

 

https://youtu.be/GcMd1F1acSo

Two lumps and a sponge finger

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Men just aren't men anymore. Imagine the low T levels of 20 year olds now.

Another large study, known as The Finnish Study, suggests that the drop in T levels was significant in younger men. A man born in 1970 has 20% less testosterone than his father did at the same age. In other words, a man who’s 46 this year has 20% less testosterone than his father did when he (the father) was 46!

Look at 'trendy' and 'progressive' media men. Good lord.

The normal T-score for an adult male ranges from 270-1,070 ng/dL, with men aged from 25-34 averaging out at 617 ng/dL. Not one BuzzFeed male met the 617 ng/dL average; rather, all the men testing below the level of a typical 85-year-old male (376 ng/dL). Moreover, three of the four men tested below the average range, and the male with the highest testosterone level, Eugene, still had a relatively low T-score with 363 ng/dL.

No wonder there is no call for dolly birds when 'men' like that are shaping the media. I bet Serena Williams has more testosterone than that.

 

I'm not following your logic - you seem to be sneering at metrosexual types, like having lower testosterone is somehow their fault - or - gasp - the logical conclusion when people's work calendars aren't page 3 birds anymore..?

I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but surely having caveman-levels of testosterone and treating people equally aren't mutually exclusive.

davel wrote:

...... Cycling (along with tennis and a handful of others) is different, though. The womens' races are as entertaining as the mens'......

Are you having a laugh?

mike the bike wrote:

davel wrote:

...... Cycling (along with tennis and a handful of others) is different, though. The womens' races are as entertaining as the mens'......

 

Are you having a laugh?

No. Do you have a point?

How many womens' road world champs or Olympic races have you watched recently? They're up there with the mens'.

hawkinspeter wrote:

@BTBS - I think the issue is more to do with normalising the use of women as "attractive baubles". The amount of clothing is not really the issue (compare with athletics where lots of the participants are scantily dressed) but the way that they are used purely as decoration.

It'd be different if the women were ex-competitors or presenters or not exclusively women, but as it stands, women are continuously bombarded with the view that society treats them as accessories for men to possess. I can't see any good argument for keeping podium girls in any sport except for "tradition" and I believe that "we've always done it this way" is the most dangerous phrase in the English language.

If you like to oggle at beautiful women (or men), then there's a whole industry dedicated to that including all states of undress, so I don't see why cycling (or any sport) needs to keep objectifying women. I say we should just get rid of them and move on.

As a % of all people and you can split that into male female too, how many look at it as attractive baubles as being the first thought.
Of that % how many of them negatively affect either those 'baubles' and our wider society over and above other aspects of every day life.
How much does the leering and objectification in an overt way change our society for the worse and without those baubles will this improve matters either individually and again at societal level?
How many women object to the 'baubles' as a %, how many of them have objectified others at all, ever in their lives, how many of them think that that was a bad thing and would have a negative effect on society and how we portray others?
Whilst it might be done to increase revenue, the underlying claims are comolete and utter bollocks with no validity to them.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

@BTBS - I think the issue is more to do with normalising the use of women as "attractive baubles". The amount of clothing is not really the issue (compare with athletics where lots of the participants are scantily dressed) but the way that they are used purely as decoration.

It'd be different if the women were ex-competitors or presenters or not exclusively women, but as it stands, women are continuously bombarded with the view that society treats them as accessories for men to possess. I can't see any good argument for keeping podium girls in any sport except for "tradition" and I believe that "we've always done it this way" is the most dangerous phrase in the English language.

If you like to oggle at beautiful women (or men), then there's a whole industry dedicated to that including all states of undress, so I don't see why cycling (or any sport) needs to keep objectifying women. I say we should just get rid of them and move on.

As a % of all people and you can split that into male female to, how many look at it as attractive baubles as being the first thought. Of that % how many of them negatively affect either those 'baubles' and our wider society over and above other aspects of every day life. How much does the leering and objectification in an overt way change our society for the worse and without those baubles will this improve matters either individually and again at societal level? How many women object to the 'baubles' as a %, how many of them have objectified others at all, ever in their lives, how many of them think that that was a bad thing and would have a negative effect on society and how we portray others? Whilst it might be done to increase revenue, the underlying claims are comolete and utter bollocks with no validity to them.

I think you are begging the question with that kind of argument.

The way that society has normalised the viewing of attractive women as objects has become so endemic that it wouldn't necessarily occur to a lot of people that it is going on. This is part of the problem and shouldn't be used as an excuse or rationalisation of the behaviour.

I know some women that would look at this kind of thing and just shrug as the problem is so big that podium girls is just a like a speck of dust in the eye - not a problem in itself, but when the same message is repeated and re-inforced throughout all media, that speck of dust becomes blinding.

Even if only 1% of women find this to be off-putting, then I'd still think it's worthwhile replacing podium girls with something like junior racers/retired cyclists etc. I just don't see any benefit to having podium girls at all and no detriment to replacing them.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

How many women object to the 'baubles' as a %, how many of them have objectified others at all, ever in their lives, how many of them think that that was a bad thing and would have a negative effect on society and how we portray others?

As my kids are growing up, I find trying to answer their questions in simple, straightforward and honest ways offers me new ways of viewing the world and its inherent bullshit.

So imagine one of your kids came to you and asked something like these (so far, mine have touched on them) -

- What's a 'Weinstein'?

- Why's this lady got her tits out one page into a national paper?

- Why are only a quarter of FTSE100 board positions women if they make up over 1/2 of the population? *

How would you answer these questions in a way, to a son/daughter/both, that doesn't conclude that, at worst, women are kept down and objectified and, at best, are just falling victim to a big boys' club?

* I'm aware that this particular boys' club is disproportionately white and public school, and ethnic minorities and working class males don't do well in it, either. But just because other groups are excluded doesn't make an absence of women a discrete issue that should be tackled as such.

davel wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

How many women object to the 'baubles' as a %, how many of them have objectified others at all, ever in their lives, how many of them think that that was a bad thing and would have a negative effect on society and how we portray others?

As my kids are growing up, I find trying to answer their questions in simple, straightforward and honest ways offers me new ways of viewing the world and its inherent bullshit. So imagine one of your kids came to you and asked something like these (so far, mine have touched on them) - - What's a 'Weinstein'? - Why's this lady got her tits out one page into a national paper? - Why are only a quarter of FTSE100 board positions women if they make up over 1/2 of the population? * How would you answer these questions in a way, to a son/daughter/both, that doesn't conclude that, at worst, women are kept down and objectified and, at best, are just falling victim to a big boys' club? * I'm aware that this particular boys' club is disproportionately white and public school, and ethnic minorities and working class males don't do well in it, either. But just because other groups are excluded doesn't make an absence of women a discrete issue that should be tackled as such.

I never bought a paper with a woman naked so my son never saw that type of thing, however a woman selling her services for money and to progress themselves is yet another aspect where people fail to see who is in control and who is manipulating whom for their benefit.

I explained to him why many jobs are done by men more than woman including but not limited to due to the physcial requirements/demands in certain jobs where productivity and safety were not able to be met by some woman simply because they are the physically weaker sex more often than not, that even if woman wanted to do a job they may feel intimidated in an all male environ. I've been in the self same situation of being the sole male, you just crack on, you ignore the jibes, the sexist/dicriminatory questioning at interviews, you cope with the fact that sometimes things are not perfect, don't always have things how you'd like them, don't always cater for your needs.

I also explained why woman are often better and more suited to certain roles in life and in the workplace. Better temperament, more experience from a young age simply because of the traditional family roles we had that are still relevant, purely down to the fact that woman are child bearers and for the most part rear babies/infants. I explained that all jobs have an important part to play no matter how menial some may see them and without them no matter what it is they are as integral to the workings and fucntioning of a business or of our society than any other.

Explaining to children why there are more men in paid work than woman is again an easy one but I taught him that respect is/should be the same for everyone, whether that role is at home or out side the home, they are very much homogenous and indeed symbiotic.

This in itself has no relation to objectification IMHO, what jobs women do has a lot of left over historical reasons as well as ignorance, reticence and fear. There are fewer barriers than ever but I accept there are some in certain areas, however this is nothing to do with nor does it have the seeds from women presenting medals, winners wreaths, introducing participants, selling perfume, clothing, groceries, bicycles or anything else for that matter.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I never bought a paper with a woman naked so my son never saw that type of thing,

I bet he was down at WH Smith's every Saturday morning, flicking through H&E with all the rest of us. Dirty little bleeder.

davel wrote:

So imagine one of your kids came to you and asked something like these (so far, mine have touched on them) -

- What's a 'Weinstein'?

- Why's this lady got her tits out one page into a national paper?

- Why are only a quarter of FTSE100 board positions women if they make up over 1/2 of the population? *

How would you answer these questions in a way, to a son/daughter/both, that doesn't conclude that, at worst, women are kept down and objectified and, at best, are just falling victim to a big boys' club?

1. It's a made up phrase to add generalisation to an unfashionable white, male, power group that is currently out of fashion largely due to the leader of the apparent 'free world'. However, Harvey Weinstein was a pathetic man who used money and power to prey on people more vulnerable.

2. Because traditional working class newspapers were sold to masses of young males working in menial jobs, it's a very out dated tradition which is frankly pathetic.

3. History is again part of the reason. Change takes time and many financial services companies (for example) are slower to change than most. Most of these positions will be held by people well in advance of 50 and opportunities back then were far different. There are also, both then and now, differences in jobs that many males and females are attracted to. Construction is still male dominated whereas teaching/nursing more female dominated - some industries are much more / less likely to have such positions or companies in the FTSE.

Whilst I was talking equality with the kids I would also point out that in this now apparently equal world; if mummy and daddy were to split up, mummy would get custody. Just to put their minds at rest...

don simon wrote:

@Deeferdonk and The_Vermonter are those your immediate thoughts when you see other attractive women at work?

The women themselves are not the problem, it's the pervs that follow them around objectifying them that is.

 

Plenty of women know they game manipulate men because of this though, so it's give and take. I'd even argue that in this social media age, the attention is welcome, even if not genuinely appreciated. Everyone wants 'likes', right? This is what confuses the social rejects these days.

I also don't think that liking attractive women makes you a 'perv', it's surely just the most basic of human responses? Don't we, as humans, form impressions within seconds of seeing people?

don simon wrote:

@Deeferdonk and The_Vermonter are those your immediate thoughts when you see other attractive women at work?

The women themselves are not the problem, it's the pervs that follow them around objectifying them that is.

 

Should we stop any and all displaying of our bodies in a particular way either dressed or in a state of undress on the off chance there are some 'perverts (sic) who might be around to see?
That should knock on the head public bathing either at a pool or the sea, anywhere it's warm, anywhere where one is required to wear clothes, basically one can objectify someone inany surrounding at any time.
So we should ban humans from interacting with each other because of the fear of some types who might have sexual thought about other adults.(that doesn't make them a pervert btw).

Sorry but this is all a massive over reaction, it fails to understand the ritual, it fails to understand who is in control (I.e. no one is forced to take the job or do something immoral or illegal). It fails to understand that objectification happens all the time in life and for the most part this is not about being perverted it's a deep biological pattern in the make-up of males for the most part.
I dare any man here to deny he has never objectified a woman, a woman he has never met and never will do.
If one thinks that objectification is the problem you fail to understand human psychology and innate behaviour, yes there are some wrong uns, yes there are some who exploit women and almost as worse those that ignore it but the problem lies elsewhere.

This misses the problem/s by a wide mark. It will not make ajot of difference to society or how some men will treat women, to think so is naive in extremis.

don simon wrote:

@Deeferdonk and The_Vermonter are those your immediate thoughts when you see other attractive women at work?

The women themselves are not the problem, it's the pervs that follow them around objectifying them that is.

 

I don't think anyone is blaming the women themselves. Everyone needs to earn money. But if a predominately male organisation employs exclusively young, "attractive" females, dresses them in skimpy clothes and uses them purely for show, to drape themselves over the winner of a sport contest, that seems wrong and a bit dirty to me. Something that belongs back in the 1970s, with Miss World contests and Jimmy Saville. If they also employed e.g overweight bearded pensioners to handover flowers and give a guy in lycra a little kiss it wouldn't be seen as an issue.

don simon wrote:

@Deeferdonk and The_Vermonter are those your immediate thoughts when you see other attractive women at work?

The women themselves are not the problem, it's the pervs that follow them around objectifying them that is.

 

They are there to be objectified. That is the problem. It is the same thing as a woman working at Hooters. An individual woman might make a choice in isolation but the opportunity she is taking is the product of systemic sexism. Spend more time watching women racing and less time worrying about who gives flowers and stuffed dolls at the end of a race.