# Podium Girls



## oldroadman (11 Apr 2013)

Are they an anachronism? Are they needed? Discuss....
(Not that I ever got kissed by podium girls very much, so no vested interest).


----------



## yello (11 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Are they an anachronism?


 
I think so, yes.

Actually, I think 'anachronism' is being polite and, in contexts, defensible. Not so with podium girls, brollie girls, etc etc etc. There are so many others ways of presenting awards too.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Apr 2013)

If F1 can do without them (on the podium at least - I do seem to remember there being rows of indenticlad young women lined up along the indoors approach to the podium) then cycling can too.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (11 Apr 2013)

Why does it matter?


----------



## Beebo (11 Apr 2013)

The ones I feel sorry for are the walk on girls in darts. They must love having a fat sweaty man kiss them.


----------



## Herr-B (11 Apr 2013)

I'm off to dust down my darts.


----------



## T4tomo (11 Apr 2013)

onthe plus side every if they weren't employed holding a brolly or kissy Phil the power Taylor, they'd be on the dole. Youi need to have some job opportunities for vacant bimbos.


----------



## Hont (11 Apr 2013)

It all does feel a little pre-feminist and plenty of other sports survive without them. I'm not sure anything would be lost by them not being there. They certainly don't determine whether I watch the podium or not.

Maybe they're for the riders. Sagan obviously appreciates them, Hincapie married one and you know what the Italians are like.


----------



## ColinJ (11 Apr 2013)

If you want a serious answer ...

How can men who approve of podium girls expect to be taken seriously in a modern society?
How can women who work as podium girls expect to be taken seriously in a modern society?


----------



## raindog (11 Apr 2013)

Couldn't care less either way. It's the racing I'm interested in. Getting all hot under the collar about things like this, when the girls involved are old enough to make their own decisions, is a waste of time - life's far too short as it is.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (11 Apr 2013)

I don't approve or disapprove. I notice them and think yeah nice tits or I would do that, then my attention goes back to the thing that I was watching.
You make the same observations to yourself maybe not so crudely put but you do.
Its human nature to inspect members of the opposite sex on first sight even if it's subconsciously.
As for being taken seriously get over yourself.
A woman doing a job and earning a living shouldn't be taken seriously?
What about underwear models permissable?
Nude models for artists?
Strippers?
sexworkers?


----------



## Arjimlad (11 Apr 2013)

What are these podium girls of whom you speak ?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (11 Apr 2013)

ColinJ said:


> If you want a serious answer ...
> 
> How can men who approve of podium girls expect to be taken seriously in a modern society?
> How can women who work as podium girls expect to be taken seriously in a modern society?


A. Why not? A fit arse is a fit arse.
B. they get paid more than I do for a days work...I know I dated one or two.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (11 Apr 2013)

cant think of anything crueller than winning the TDF , having wall to wall 'podium girls' and a serious case of post ride shrinkage to deal with.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Apr 2013)

Yes, they are an anachronism. And unfortunately also the flipside of why women's cycling is not better supported financially and logistically, which is a far more important issue.


----------



## Dayvo (11 Apr 2013)

Arjimlad said:


> What are these podium girls of whom you speak ?


 
As if you didn't know:





Didn't do George Hincapie any harm: he married one.

In the same vein, are cheerleaders really needed? Particularly at the T20 crciket matches.


----------



## neilb1906 (11 Apr 2013)

IIRC, they had podium men at the Tour of Oman.


----------



## thom (11 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Are they an anachronism? Are they needed? Discuss....
> (Not that I ever got kissed by podium girls very much, so no vested interest).


I'm not sure what there is to discuss really. What is the relevance of a couple of women posing for photos as if _kissing_ the winner of a bike race ? It is a problem for cycling that it relies on such sexist representation to promote it. Wasn't the race in itself interesting enough ?


----------



## addictfreak (11 Apr 2013)

Picture Removed by Mods

I can see two good reasons for keeping them!


----------



## BigonaBianchi (11 Apr 2013)

..they arn' t as hot as real female cyclists ...cant beat a fit lady on a bike ....


----------



## thom (11 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> I can see two good reasons for keeping them!


I have to say I'm pretty pissed off to see posts like this.
If you want to say you like ogling women's breasts, say it. 
Posting that picture is low.

Congratulations on perpetuating the sexist image of pro-cycling.


----------



## coffeejo (11 Apr 2013)

thom said:


> I have to say I'm pretty ****ed off to see posts like this.
> If you want to say you like ogling women's breasts, say it.
> Posting that picture is low.
> 
> Congratulations on perpetuating the sexist image of pro-cycling.


Agree 100%. Doesn't do much for the image of CycleChat, either, I'm sorry to say.


----------



## addictfreak (11 Apr 2013)

thom said:


> I have to say I'm pretty ****ed off to see posts like this.
> If you want to say you like ogling women's breasts, say it.
> Posting that picture is low.
> 
> Congratulations on perpetuating the sexist image of pro-cycling.




You must be a hoot at parties.


----------



## Spinney (11 Apr 2013)

Any of you guys that approve of podium girls have daughters?

If so, are you happy for her/them to be fed the message that women's main importance is to look pretty/sexy (delete according to their age), while it is the men that actually _do_ things?

Someone said the women (note women, not girls) are old enough to make their own decisions, but how many of their decisions were based on the mindset that women are valued because of their looks?


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 Apr 2013)

Herr-B said:


> I'm off to dust down my darts.


 Oo-errr
Calling Fnaar ....


----------



## Buddfox (11 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> Any of you guys that approve of podium girls have daughters?
> 
> If so, are you happy for her/them to be fed the message that women's main importance is to look pretty/sexy (delete according to their age), while it is the men that actually _do_ things?
> 
> Someone said the women (note women, not girls) are old enough to make their own decisions, but how many of their decisions were based on the mindset that women are valued because of their looks?


 
I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Rather than just being a simple question of whether podium girls are an anachronism, it's the distribution of female role models in society between different professions. If we saw the equivalent number of examples of women being successful in all walks of life - be it business, the law, medicine or indeed women's cycling - then it becomes less of an issue. Problem is too many young women still grow up thinking being pretty is the limit of what they can achieve.


----------



## raindog (11 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> Someone said the women (note women, not girls) are old enough to make their own decisions, but how many of their decisions were based on the mindset that women are valued because of their looks?


That was me who said that, and I would think their decision would be based on having a job and earning a living. Why would it be about anything else? And if the women happen to be attractive, so what? Is that a crime on their part?


----------



## Cycleops (11 Apr 2013)

Buddfox said:


> Problem is too many young women still grow up thinking being pretty is the limit of what they can achieve.



Isn't this to do more these days with the rise of the cult of celebrity?


----------



## BigonaBianchi (11 Apr 2013)

would there be 'podium guys' in a ladies tour?
I doubt it...


----------



## fossala (11 Apr 2013)

Should we ban male models? If they want to do it let them do it. I'm not pro-podium girls. I'm more pro-let women do what the want. Why should one women/man tell another women/man how to act if it isn't directly hurting someone?!


----------



## rich p (11 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> View attachment 21808
> 
> 
> I can see two good reasons for keeping them!


 
Grow up. If you want to look at womens' breasts I suggest you hunt out a porn site rather than ogling podium girls; and posting a picture like that on this thread is particularly puerile.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (11 Apr 2013)

that's just pure sexist...i'm offended...


----------



## addictfreak (11 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> Grow up. If you want to look at womens' breasts I suggest you hunt out a porn site rather than ogling podium girls; and posting a picture like that on this thread is particularly puerile.



Has no one on this thread got a sense of humour.

If couldn't really care less if they use podium girls or pink elephants.


----------



## addictfreak (11 Apr 2013)

User said:


> View attachment 21821
> 
> 
> women's cyclocross, podium guys


 

You will have the morality squad on your case.


----------



## e-rider (11 Apr 2013)

this thread needs more pics


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Apr 2013)

I'd rather cycling wasn't, and some cyclists weren't, so pathetically, and predictably, sexist as to think that podium girls, or boys, were appropriate in the 21st C. Objectifying people... it's all a bit adolescent. Can't we just be adults and treat others like they are too?


----------



## thom (11 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> Has no one on this thread got a sense of humour.
> 
> If couldn't really care less if they use podium girls or pink elephants.


You posted a picture of a woman and said you liked looking at her breasts. 

That is not funny or clever, its puerile and offensive.

How about you do us a favour and delete that picture ? I'll delete my posts if you do that.


----------



## resal (11 Apr 2013)

It is the Track and Field World Champs. Earlier in the day was the women's 50m sprint final. Tonight it will be the ultimate, the 100m. ( No need to call it the men's 100m because the women don't do that, they are considered too delicate.) The highlight of all the activities during the week have been the men's events. There was the men's marathon and the women's 12mile ling distance event. Sadly nobody got to see anything other than the men's marathon because although the cameras were there in place, apparently there is no market for women's sport, the male TV execs tell us there is no interest. They tried it five years ago and the sales on the advertising were shocking and the commentators hated it because they could only recognise 3 runners in the field so spoke about the forthcoming men's event throughout. Anyway back to our 100m final. There is a load of hype before the start. The male commentators talk about the heroic nature of the male participants. A token babe with a mic is allowed to do a "ditsy" piece with the last "plucky-Brit" loser for his opinion. The race is won. At the podium, the girls bring the medals out, walking carefully in their soft porn outfits. The customary shot is taken of the winner with two of the girls kissing him, one from each side. The babe with the mic dutifully asks the male expert for his opinion.

The women's 12 mile distance race winner gets no air time. Nobody knows who she is or where she is from.

Discuss ! What is there to discuss? Even asking the question is a statement of misogyny.

As for "I don't care". That says an awful lot about you.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Apr 2013)

In isolation, it's nothing to get excited about, but highlights the lack of women in top level positions perfectly.

If the UCI had an equal proportion of men and women they [podium girls] wouldn't exist.


----------



## srw (11 Apr 2013)

User said:


> View attachment 21821
> 
> 
> women's cyclocross, podium guys


I think someone might _just_ be taking the piss out of the sexism inherent in far too much sport.


----------



## srw (11 Apr 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> ..they arn' t as hot as real female cyclists ...cant beat a fit lady on a bike ....


As I understand it, most of them _are _real female cyclists - extremely fit women who would be on a bike and competing if only there was money in it. I suspect most of them would spank you hollow in any competition at any distance you care to suggest.


----------



## raindog (11 Apr 2013)

fossala said:


> Why should one women/man tell another women/man how to act if it isn't directly hurting someone?!


exactly - it's completely patronising, as if the poor empty headed little things can't think for themselves.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Apr 2013)

what a bellendish thing to say.


----------



## addictfreak (11 Apr 2013)

thom said:


> You posted a picture of a woman and said you liked looking at her breasts.
> 
> That is not funny or clever, its puerile and offensive.
> 
> How about you do us a favour and delete that picture ? I'll delete my posts if you do that.



I suggest you read the post again, no where in it are the words ' I like looking at breasts'

If you find pictures of attractive ladies offensive, that's your problem. Unlike you I don't find other people's post offensive, I may disagree but that's life!

I trust you have made the same reply to the poster of the semi naked males.


----------



## Basil.B (11 Apr 2013)

I like em!
Also the Grid girls in MotoGP.


----------



## thom (11 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> I suggest you read the post again, no where in are the words ' I like looking at breasts'


People on this forum have got brains mate.
My offer still stands - do us a favour and delete your post please.


----------



## raindog (11 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> what a bellendish thing to say.


likewise


----------



## 400bhp (11 Apr 2013)

ner ner.

1970's man in full effect.


----------



## Sittingduck (11 Apr 2013)

Get rid, says I.
It's 2013, not the Nineteen Seventies...


----------



## hobbitonabike (11 Apr 2013)

I think I would have more respect for them if they actually DID something for their money...more than just standing there to be ogled at as a sexual object. They don't offend me by standing there it just seems pointless! If I had the looks to be paid a fortune to stand and look all pretty, would I? I don't know...maybe but then if I amnpaid to be a sexual object I can't really see my arse if someone cops a feel of it can I!!


----------



## tigger (11 Apr 2013)

Podium girls neither please nor offend me. I'm with Raindog, each to their own and nobody forces them... It's a pointless thread and I'm surprised its attracted this many posts. We're only talking about it because Sagan's too immature to respect women. These comments would be better posted on the thread dedicated to him I'd have thought?


----------



## Crackle (11 Apr 2013)

Perhaps we could compromise on podium transvestites.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Apr 2013)

tigger said:


> Podium girls neither please nor offend me. I'm with Raindog, each to their own and nobody forces them... It's a pointless thread and I'm surprised its attracted this many posts. We're only talking about it because *Sagan's too immature to respect women*. These comments would be better posted on the thread dedicated to him I'd have thought?


 
Huh?


----------



## tigger (11 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> Huh?



http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BGslCFsCMAIvvwY.jpg


----------



## RiflemanSmith (11 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> Huh?


There was a picture of a woman cyclist on the podium grabbing a man's arse on my FB feed but I can't find it now.


----------



## Moderators (11 Apr 2013)

Some pictures have been removed from this thread.

No more please.


----------



## rich p (11 Apr 2013)

I'm happy to discuss whether podium girls are a good or bad idea but deliberately posting pictures that many on here will be offended by is hardly a cogent argument.


----------



## tigger (11 Apr 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> There was a picture of a woman cyclist on the podium grabbing a man's arse on my FB feed but I can't find it now.



At risk of causing offence, was it this one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...Gilbert-to-claim-eighth-race-of-the-year.html


----------



## BigonaBianchi (11 Apr 2013)

ok what does _bellendish_ mean?


----------



## ColinJ (11 Apr 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> ok what does _bellendish_ mean?


A.k.a. (k)nobber(ish)?


----------



## raindog (12 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> ner ner.
> 
> 1970's man in full effect.


how old are you, 14?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Apr 2013)

Shame it no longer exists, but the "Podium Girl gone bad" website was a brilliantly satirical look at cycling


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

Debates like this really make me chuckle  i love it when teddies get thrown from the pram and viterol condemnation of this and that is thrown about with gay abandon! 

We all have our own opinions of whats right and wrong but like a majority of internet debates or debates in general, we spout what we believe to be true or how we feel on the matter etc without one vital ingredient "Asking an actual podium girl what they think" which is funny because I'd wager that they enjoy it? and that after all that would be a massive kick in the pro femenist camps janglies? I personally love looking at attractive women as that is what I'm programmed to do at gene level and to fight this primordial urge would be futile  

As the saying goes "If you've got it flaunt it"


----------



## MacB (12 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> As the saying goes "If you've got it flaunt it"


 
quite right it clearly works well:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...graph-of-her-being-gang-raped-goes-viral.html

worth reading it all as the tale of another girl is mixed in as well


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> whoosh


 
That's sound of the point of the entire debate being missed.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

tigger said:


> Podium girls neither please nor offend me. I'm with Raindog, each to their own and nobody forces them... It's a pointless thread ....


 
This, and other posts along the same lines, are rather missing the point. Of course the women are free to take that job if they wish. My problem with podium girls here, and in other sports, is the message it sends out to young girls, about what they will be valued for. 

This may have no effect (hopefully), but it can also lead to many girls not achieving their potential at school because it's not cool for girls to be good at (say) physics, for not trying at sport because they'll get all sweaty and not look nice, for not considering many careers because 'girls don't do that', or they may have to wear some kind of uniform that doesn't look good, and even (as someone pointed out above) to the lack of coverage of women's sport and the consequent difficulty of being a professional cyclist (for example) because there is not enough media interest.

Now before someone jumps in and says that podium girls don't cause all that - of course they don't, on their own. They are a symptom of a still-pervasive sexist attitude in society. We have come an awful long way in the last century, but equality in law needs to be followed with equality in attitudes, and getting rid of the podium girls (or having both men and women present the flowers/cuddly toys etc) would be a small step towards that.


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

You've read the full thread then? My point is ref the replies not the orginal post? Mmmmm this was meant to be ah reply to the "whoosh" comment but I havent got the handle on this forum yet with quotes etc.


As to the suicide and gang rape ? Thats exactly the kind of reply I was expecting some one overeacting.....but that's the internets for ya! as some one famously said "To each and every action there is an opposite and truly stupid overeaction"


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> You've read the full thread then? My point is ref the replies not the orginal post?


 
I'm very interested to discover that you thought you had a point that hadn't already been flogged to death.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> Picture Removed by Mods
> 
> I can see two good reasons for keeping them!



I see the cycle chat stasi are at it again. A perfectly acceptable picture of an attractive woman in a black dress!
I we go down the road of removing posts etc that 'may offend' a few people then you might as well close the forum.


----------



## MacB (12 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> I see the cycle chat stasi are at it again. A perfectly acceptable picture of an attractive woman in a black dress!
> I we go down the road of removing posts etc that 'may offend' a few people then you might as well close the forum.


 
you think? I would say that the 'lads eye view' is already more than catered for across the internet.

Spitting the dummy when you get a smack on the wrist is almost as big a give away regarding immaturity as posting girly pictures


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Apr 2013)

It's funny how it's always 'the forum' that has the problem, never the person who has made an idiot of themselves.


----------



## Radchenister (12 Apr 2013)

The polar views appear to prevail here, are you still allowed to sit in the middle on this issue or must I fall in line and consider it offensive, because I don't at the moment - at least I didn't ... in fact I never really thought it was anything other than a little old fashioned, quirky yes, also quite quaint, if not a touch of old style innocent but also quite stylish ... that was until coming on this forum and being educated that it was a problem?


----------



## rich p (12 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> The polar views appear to prevail here, are you still allowed to sit in the middle on this issue or must I fall in line and consider it offensive, because I don't at the moment - at least I didn't ... in fact I never really thought it was anything other than a little old fashioned, quirky yes, also quite quaint, if not a touch of old style innocent but also quite stylish ... that was until coming on this forum and being educated that it was a problem?


Sit wherever you like and argue your case like an adult, Rad.
Alternative views are fine, but posting provocative pictures is what has raised hackles on this thread.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> Picture Removed by Mods
> 
> I can see two good reasons for keeping them!


This is really sad, mods IMO have stepped outside their role and become the Taliban.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> This is really sad, mods IMO have stepped outside their role and become the Taliban.


 
Tut tut, are you sure that's bad enough? I would suggest the Gestapo, or perhaps Satan's Little Helpers at the very least...


----------



## RiflemanSmith (12 Apr 2013)

Wow this forum is a joke some times. 
I don't really care about poduim girls, I think there are far more important things to address. 
What I find really pathetic is that picture being removed! 
Yes that picture had no place in this thread, but why did it get removed? 
Some one found it offensive and reported it? 
Was it porn?
No it was a woman in a dress ffs.
Removing pictures or post when there is nothing actually wrong with them just because some one is offended is not the way to go. 
"Just because some thing offends you doesn't make you right" Stephen Fry.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

^ he put what I meant in a better way.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow this forum is a joke some times.
> I don't really care about poduim girls, I think there are far more important things to address....


 
Yes, there are - poverty, disease, etc.

But this is still important*, and SO easy to change, so why not do it?

* I presume from your forum name that you are male, and so may not have noticed or realise the effect that the objectification of women can have on other women and girls. However, many posters on here have demonstrated that being male does not _have_ to lead to being oblivious to these attitudes. Chapeau to those who can see beyond the tits.


----------



## theclaud (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> ^ he put what I meant *in a better way*.


Christ - glad you didn't bother, then.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Apr 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Yes that picture had no place in this thread, but why did it get removed?


 
You answered your own question already.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

IMO the forum has changed and there does seem to be more morals police on here, no wonder a lot of the old crew have moved o to pastures new.

The photos were not offensive or illegal and were put up as a bit of light relief and IMO the poster had no intentions to offend.

For the ones who have taken a "lets stand up for the poor exploited women", seriously you really haven't got a clue. I dated a few podium girls and have been married to one for over 20 years, she finds your patronising old fashioned views ridiculous.

She has even said she loved rinsing you, you poor saps...


Edit: FYI quite a lot of these "poor exploited souls" are highly professional women, midwives, solicitors, nurses, manageress' who just happen to be beautiful and EXPLOIT MEN!!!!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> IMO the forum has changed and there does seem to be more morals police on here, no wonder a lot of the old crew have moved o to pastures new.


 
I've been here since the beginning. I haven't noticed any terrible new oppressive regime, quite the contrary, it's really very reasonable and well-managed here and manages on the whole to keep the balance between a welcoming atmosphere and a free-for-all.



> For the ones who have taken a "lets stand up for the poor exploited women", seriously you really haven't got a clue. I dated a few podium girls and have been married to one for over 20 years, she finds your patronising old fashioned views ridiculous.
> 
> She has even said she loved rinsing you, you poor saps...


 
I know a woman, I am even married to one. She thinks you're wrong. Case closed.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> For the ones who have taken a "lets stand up for the poor exploited women", seriously you really haven't got a clue. I dated a few podium girls and have been married to one for over 20 years, she finds your patronising old fashioned views ridiculous.
> 
> She has even said she loved rinsing you, you poor saps...


 
Have you STILL not got the point that it isn't about the podium girls themselves, it is about the message that is being sent to other women, of all ages?

If women want to be podium girls/porn stars/whatever, it is entirely up to them. However it would be nice if they took those decisions in a world where they were not brainwashed into thinking from childhood that women's main role is to look pretty for the delectation of men.

Edit: and before anyone says this - no, not all women are brainwashed by this kind of thing. But quite a lot are. If you know someone who isn't, great! But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> Have you STILL not got the point that it isn't about the podium girls themselves, it is about the message that is being sent to other women, of all ages?
> 
> If women want to be podium girls/porn stars/whatever, it is entirely up to them. However it would be nice if they took those decisions in a world where they were not brainwashed into thinking from childhood that women's main role is to look pretty for the delectation of men.


Where did you grow up? Sounds oppressive and a bit of a fantasy land.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> Where did you grow up? Sounds oppressive and a bit of a fantasy land.


 
bromptonfb thinks I am making it up, so I must be wrong. Silly me. I'll go and find my make-up. Must be more important things to do than trying for a bit of equality. Maybe I should be at the hairdressers.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> bromptonfb thinks I am making it up, so I must be wrong. Silly me. I'll go and find my make-up. Must be more important things to do than trying for a bit of equality. Maybe I should be at the hairdressers.


Aah sarcasm, the wit of the weak argument.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> Aah sarcasm, the wit of the weak argument.


Somehow worse than denying there is a problem at all?


----------



## thom (12 Apr 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow this forum is a joke some times.
> I don't really care about poduim girls, I think there are far more important things to address.
> What I find really pathetic is that picture being removed!
> Yes that picture had no place in this thread, but why did it get removed?
> ...


That picture was offensive in conjunction with the comment on the post.
The essence of the comment is that the commenter likes looking at the breasts of the woman.
The picture itself isn't offensive, the comment with it encourages the view that the particular woman should be thought of in terms of her breasts and that cyclechat is a place where it is acceptable to do so.
Without the picture, the poster states his personal opinion of podium girls but at least we aren't implicitly endorsing cyclechat as an environment where people should indulge that representation.


----------



## Radchenister (12 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> Sit wherever you like and argue your case like an adult, Rad.
> Alternative views are fine, but posting provocative pictures is what has raised hackles on this thread.


 
Agree on the picture post being a tad troll like but don't really feel the need to enter into the 'are you for or against' argument heavily thanks anyway - oh go on then, maybe just a little though .

Consenting adults can opt in or out as they see fit IMO - my other half has done the hosting role at a golf event in years gone by. This was after considering it seriously when asked by my boss of the time; we found it ironic, as she has exactly the same qualifications as me (and my boss) and at the time worked for a company that was 1st division compared to the middle league crew I was with.

The prize giving involved some of the same kissy kissy rigmarole but this was just part of that day out - it's not quite the photo staged cycle podium thing, with people dressed in flimsy dresses and tight Lycra but it wasn't far off it. After a while considering it, neither of us had an issue with the role and we did discuss whether it was acceptable at the time (maybe year 2000ish).

It actually proved to be a pleasant day out, there were a few old school misogynists who treated my other half like the 'office girl' (she was hosting with two male directors and the young female office manager lady on the day - the rest of us were playing golf); people knew that some of the old guard were a little disrespectful and just thought the perpetrators were stupid, as educated ladies (is that a misogynist term?) they were clearly above that behaviour.

The majority of people on the day were decent and sociable, making for an on the whole positive experience - we did have a problem with the 'girls' not being allowed in a certain players bar in that particular club house though, so I and a few others boycotted that locality (which was scruffy anyway) and left a few old farts to revel in their stink pit, while the younger crowd all sat in sunshine in the lounge bar.

If my daughter was inclined to do the role (she's 6 at the mo', so it's highly unlikely it will survive as a job by the time the opportunity arose, as the default PC position will have eradicated it by then), I would hope my partner and I will have educated her to a level where she could decide for herself and spot those amongst the proceedings who were potential 'offenders', being able to handle the situation appropriately.

Where do I stand now? Can't stand golf and corporate events and would rather go fishing or cycling  !

Seriously though, why not ask the podium girls (and boys) please and see if they'd rather not do it - if they'd rather not and are feeling obliged for whatever reason, then consider ruling it out.

Also, if someone can demonstrate that the implications of them being there are truly detrimental to society and not just a debatable opinion on a forum, then I'm happy to listen.

Lastly, in the interests of harmony and karma, if it really is going to cause arguments, then please remove them if you like, makes not a jot of difference to me.


----------



## User169 (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> Aah sarcasm, the wit of the weak argument.


 
Not entirely convinced that likening the Mods to the Taliban bears the hallmarks of robust argument.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> Somehow worse than denying there is a problem at all?


Where is the evidence of this problem in regards to podium girls? You seem to have taken a stance of podium girls' knight in shining armour and want to protect them from being exploited. Maybe this is something your parents instilled in you, or some baggage you've picked up along the way.

You don't seem to have any insight into the world of the podium girls and are basing your argument on tabloid and media portrayals.

I, on the other hand do have an inight and used to 'hang out' with podium girls and their partners and I know that they are in no way (in the most) exploited...in fact...it is MEN...who are exploited by them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2013)

If I want to look at pictures of tits; they are but a click away.
If I want to look at pictures of attractive women; they are but a click away.
If I want to read posts written at the level of a "lads mag" that objectify individuals according to their perceived sexual desirability; such posts are but a click away in other forums.

I don't need or want to come in here and find such material.

THANK YOU mods for intervening.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

GregCollins said:


> If I want to look at pictures of tits; they are but a click away.
> If I want to look at pictures of attractive women; they are but a click away.
> If I want to read posts written at the level of a "lads mag" that objectify individuals according to their perceived sexual desirability; such posts are but a click away in other forums.
> 
> ...




In the same vein, 'tis only one less click to not see them.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (12 Apr 2013)

thom said:


> That picture was offensive in conjunction with the comment on the post.
> The essence of the comment is that the commenter likes looking at the breasts of the woman.
> The picture itself isn't offensive, the comment with it encourages the view that the particular woman should be thought of in terms of her breasts and that cyclechat is a place where it is acceptable to do so.
> Without the picture, the poster states his personal opinion of podium girls but at least we aren't implicitly endorsing cyclechat as an environment where people should indulge that representation.


Yep totally agree the context in Which it was posted was purile but still don't agree with removing it.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> Where is the evidence of this problem in regards to podium girls? *You seem to have taken a stance of podium girls' knight in shining armour and want to protect them from being exploited.* Maybe this is something your parents instilled in you, or some baggage you've picked up along the way.
> 
> You don't seem to have any insight into the world of the podium girls and are basing your argument on tabloid and media portrayals.
> 
> I, on the other hand do have an inight and used to 'hang out' with podium girls and their partners and I know that they are in no way (in the most) exploited...in fact...it is MEN...who are exploited by them.


 
FFS - are you being deliberately obtuse? I directly said in a previous post that I didn't have a problem with the podium girls themselves, it was with the message being sent to other women! ALL women, not just podium girls. When have I said the podium girls are being exploited?


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

Well Mr Flying Monkey sir, looks like even though as you have already stated "this topic has been flogged to death" seems like you have a lot to say about it? Maybe you just like reading your own replies? I know I do but I've got an ulterior motive. With my goodself being a newbie here I need to get my post count up and found this an intersesting topic to join in on? Sorry if this in anyway upset you?

Anyway swiftly moving on sexism is purely in the eye of the beholder? Is a couple of pretty girls handing out flowers and a kiss really that bad? no but is it needed? again no but then again what is really needed? It's all entertainment at the end of the day to fill up our mundane lifes because we dont have to hunt and gather anymore. The problem as I see it isn't with the girls it's everyone that has an opinion on it  Yes I do include myself in that one.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (12 Apr 2013)

You really are a bunch of hypocrites. 
Yes that picture was posted in bad taste, but it became part of the thread. 
It was connected on and discussed, yes?
It has been removed so any body reading this after the removal won't be able to see what is being debated and tapes about and make a decision for themselves. 
Well done.


----------



## coffeejo (12 Apr 2013)

What have looks / beauty / ability to fill a bra got to do with sport / success at sport? That's my objection to the concept of podium girls.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Also, if someone can demonstrate that the implications of them being there are truly detrimental to society and not just a debatable opinion on a forum, then I'm happy to listen.


 
Just one link from the first page of a google search:
http://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/index.cfm?parent=2514&detail=4475&content=4795
There is plenty of other stuff out there, if you want to look. (I'm not suggesting you _should_ be looking here, necessarily, but just accept that there possibly IS a problem).

Obviously it isn't just podium girls, but a whole media thing. But podium girls don't help. It wouldn't be a problem if they wanted to (say) pick the first 6 people they happened to pass in the street and ask them to present the prizes, but I'd take some convincing that they aren't picked because they are female, slim, pretty, young etc, etc.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> Just one link from the first page of a google search:
> http://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/index.cfm?parent=2514&detail=4475&content=4795
> There is plenty of other stuff out there, if you want to look. (I'm not suggesting you _should_ be looking here, necessarily, but just accept that there possibly IS a problem).
> 
> Obviously it isn't just podium girls, but a whole media thing. But podium girls don't help. It wouldn't be a problem if they wanted to (say) pick the first 6 people they happened to pass in the street and ask them to present the prizes, but I'd take some convincing that they aren't picked because they are female, slim, pretty, young etc, etc.


That isn't about podium girls. Which is where you have based your stance in this thread...your seem to be moving the goal posts to suit your argument.

I haven't mentioned any other areas as I have no direct experience except podium girls and models...this has been my stance from the beginning.


----------



## Arjimlad (12 Apr 2013)

Personally I am torn between Benny-Hill-ish humour and sexism as a child of the 70s, and the sensible approach but overall I think there is a problem with this, in how women are objectified & treated as eye-candy in professional sports.

Most sports have got over this and moved on, and it would appear to me that cycling should do so as well.

I don't recall seeing podium girls at the Olympics. If I were to have my time again and win a bike race, I would want a kiss from my wife (rather than have her watch me get pawed by or pawing a nubile young maiden or three as her reward for indulging my sporting passions). I do entirely agree that it's a free choice for the girls concerned but if I were organising the podium they'd not be on my list of stuff to schedule.

With an image-obsessed society, where we judge so readily on looks, perhaps it is time for sports that want to be taken a bit more seriously (and dare I say which might have some ground to make up after various doping scandals) to get with it.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> That isn't about podium girls. Which is where you have based your stance in this thread...your seem to be moving the goal posts to suit your argument.
> 
> I haven't mentioned any other areas as I have no direct experience except podium girls and models...this has been my stance from the beginning.


 
You really can't see that podium girls are part of the whole 'image of women' thing? 

Your stance appears to have been 'I'm married to one/know a lot of podium girls' and I know they're not exploited, therefore Spinney is living in some fantasy land and is making up arguments'. Completely ignoring the fact that I wasn't talking about exploiting the podium women themselves at all.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

No no, the original theme of the thread was podium girls are just exploited females giving other females a bad rep.

I believe that podium are not exploited and as such are actually empowered by their beauty and job, why else would highly professional women choose to do it? Unless of course your saying highly successful professional women are just pandering to media and societal pressure to become the stereotypical bimbo.


----------



## theclaud (12 Apr 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> You really are a bunch of hypocrites.
> Yes that picture was posted in bad taste, but it became part of the thread.
> It was connected on and discussed, yes?
> *It has been removed so any body reading this after the removal won't be able to see what is being debated* and tapes about and make a decision for themselves.
> Well done.


 
It was removed before I saw the thread. It makes no difference - "look at the tits on that" is not a "debate".


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (12 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> It was removed before I saw the thread. It makes no difference - "look at the tits on that" is not a "debate".


Who said it had to be debate? Maybe it was just a one off point of interest and ill judged joke?


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> No no, the original theme of the thread was podium girls are just exploited females giving other females a bad rep.
> 
> I believe that podium are not exploited and as such are actually *empowered by their* *beauty* and job, why else would highly professional women choose to do it? Unless of course your saying highly successful professional women are just pandering to media and societal pressure to become the stereotypical bimbo.


 
The original post was:

"Are they an anachronism? Are they needed? Discuss..."

I fail to see how my argument is irrelevant to that. And I also fail to see how this is saying that podium girls are exploited, or giving other females a bad rep.

And the part of your post I've put in bold is quite telling, I think. They are empowered by their beauty. So women who are not as beautiful will be less empowered?


----------



## theclaud (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> Who said it had to be debate? Maybe it was just a one off point of interest and ill judged joke?


 
Blimey - try to follow at least the last two or three posts, there's a good fellow. Rifleman Smith claimed that removing pictures of women that were posted in order for addictfreak to affirm his own masculinity by ogling their tits affects the debate (his word). It doesn't.


----------



## Radchenister (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney, an interesting article - can you find one for media pressure on men as well please?

How about the squeezed middle 40 something and their lack of hope by the Daily Mail?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ession-epidemic-suffered-middle-aged-men.html


I think someone said above, in a balanced society gender roles are natural, when the roles become limited, ill defined or problematic is not something that I, or anyone else is going to be able to really define here in relation to podium girls and the wider society.

The crux of this issue constitutes defining who are 'offenders' and who are 'offended' and by what action, that's the key issue IMO.

I'm struggling to see any fault or oppression and feel the podium girls and boys make little odds to me personally; I can understand that some people might not like them and believe I am a sociably minded chap but am not yet convinced they make any real odds to the world at large either ... but as I've said, the default position is to agree that they can simply be removed, as I am neutral on the need for them.

Although don't take my word for it ... you're local to me, you're welcome to come around and listen to my other half and daughter, as they'd be happy to input I'm sure - I might be writing off their ability for a glam day out.


----------



## raindog (12 Apr 2013)

oldroadman, who started the thread, has never posted again. I can imagine him just sitting back chuckling at the mayhem he's caused.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Spinney, an interesting article - can you find one for media pressure on men as well please?
> 
> How about the squeezed middle 40 something and their lack of hope by the Daily Mail?
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ession-epidemic-suffered-middle-aged-men.html
> ...


 
I'm not denying that such things do not affect men - there is evidence (I think) that taller men are more likely to get promoted etc, etc. But I think that you will find it hard to argue that there is _as much_ media pressure on men as on women.

As I said before, the podium girls are part of a much wider pressure on women to look attractive. And your partner/wife and daughter may not feel pressured to conform to media stereotypes (are you sure?), but that does not mean that others are not. And it is not a problem that is apparent to many men - naturally, if it does not affect you, you are unlikely to notice it.


----------



## Crackle (12 Apr 2013)

As a man, I can appreciate a podium girl as much as any pretty woman, in fact any woman, they are fascinating in all forms. - don't quote that bit out of context now.

As a human being I find them an anachronism. Not because there's something inherently wrong with people wanting to do that kind of role but because it is an unfortunate representation, one which re-inforces an objectification of, in this case, women, hardly conducive to an equal society etc...

I daresay, some do it without thinking about what they are portraying, some have thought it through and made a conscious decision, some just think it's OK and some are a bit thick.

So in fact, podium girls are potentially complex issues as are podium blokes, podium transvestites (if only) and podium ladyboys (hah!). Viewing them from one angle and attaching your label makes you in danger of being wrong.

I expect Sagan didn't really think about what he was doing at all. I bet he has now though.


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

raindog said:


> oldroadman, who started the thread, has never posted again. I can imagine him just sitting back chuckling at the mayhem he's caused.


And the amount of work I should have done but have not!


----------



## Radchenister (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney, that's my point - I'm not arguing, I am giving my opinion, bowing to them (podium 'people') being removed and still being told to change my view, despite it being a fairly reasonable position I feel  ... or perhaps it isn't?


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

I wasn't trying to tell you to change your opinion, just trying to point out why you may not have noticed any adverse effects of podium girls (etc), and inviting you to reconsider a little. 

(You're not bromptonfb!)


----------



## Radchenister (12 Apr 2013)

Ultimately, I'm a bloke - apologies  !


----------



## hobbitonabike (12 Apr 2013)

I get where you are coming from Spinney. Having suffered in the past with low self esteem it has taken me a long time to accept I will never look like the stereotype podium girl and finally be happy in my own skin. Images like this used to really rankle me, now however I am indifferent personally but do worry about the effect images like those have on young girls. I work in a primary school and to hear girls as young as 7 worry about whether they are pretty, thin and even trying to act 'sexy' is gut wrenching. I try very hard to encourage an attitude of healthiness over beauty but when you are up against the images we see everywhere and the comments that are made about them, you have to wonder if you're banging your head on a brick wall!!!


----------



## Lurpak (12 Apr 2013)

Cyclechat mods en route to Cheltenham yesterday.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Well Mr Flying Monkey sir, looks like even though as you have already stated "this topic has been flogged to death" seems like you have a lot to say about it? Maybe you just like reading your own replies? I know I do but I've got an ulterior motive. With my goodself being a newbie here I need to get my post count up and found this an intersesting topic to join in on? Sorry if this in anyway upset you?
> 
> Anyway swiftly moving on sexism is purely in the eye of the beholder?* Is a couple of pretty girls handing out flowers* and a kiss really that bad? no but is it needed? again no but then again what is really needed? It's all entertainment at the end of the day to fill up our mundane lifes because we dont have to hunt and gather anymore. The problem as I see it isn't with the girls it's everyone that has an opinion on it  Yes I do include myself in that one.


Why do they need to be pretty girls?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2013)

Lurpak said:


> Cyclechat mods en route to Cheltenham yesterday.


You are demeaning yourself and insulting the mods, by this comparison.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Apr 2013)

I was really struck by the synchronicity of Firestorm's wonderful thread about his much-loved cycling parents and everything that the 'cycle chat taliban stopped me exercising my right to ogle pictures of podium girls' crowd here represent. Just contrast the photo of Firestorm's mother giving it some real welly on the bike and the pictures of podium girls... it's pretty clear which represents the kind of role model girls should be growing up with, which one says empowerment and equality, and which one should be the future of cycle sport.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> In the same vein, 'tis only one less click to not see them.


Why should I have to click at all in here?


----------



## Lurpak (12 Apr 2013)

GregCollins said:


> You are demeaning yourself and insulting the mods, by this comparison.


Indeed, the comparison is absurd.


----------



## User169 (12 Apr 2013)

GregCollins said:


> You are demeaning yourself and insulting the mods, by this comparison.


 
Hope that's a joke - I assumed it was reference to bromptonfb's earlier post.


----------



## ianrauk (12 Apr 2013)

Lurpak said:


> Cyclechat mods en route to Cheltenham yesterday.


 

As a Mod I am seriously offended by this.
For 1, yeah like I would travel by motor vehicle and not a high end Ti or Carbon bicycle.
and 2.. they are not of my unit of Taliban Mods. I mean, mine have Blue headbands?


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

Because after cycling over 100km through mountain terrain I wouldn't want to be kissed by a woman with a face like a gorrila,simples! 

Lets face it folks....elephants cant climb trees, ugly wimmin cant be podium girls, it's just a sad fact of life.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Apr 2013)

Well I pop out for a while and all hell breaks loose.

First off, nothing whatsoever offensive about the picture.

The comment, in my opinion not offensive depending on the context that its posted or interpreted of course.

Intention, light hearted banter on a thread that had the potential to be a tad boring. Some may say childish banter, but banter none the less. Nothing sinister. Unfortunately there are those how have chosen to interpret banter as the work of satin and even link it to gang rape. 

Anyway back to reality

Podium girls, do we need them. No
Do they enhance cycling or other sport. No

Incidentally there are far more worrying things that damage the image of cycling, than podium girls.

Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Hope that's a joke - I assumed it was reference to bromptonfb's earlier post.


I see no smiley in said post. Therefore....

Edit: but lurpak has clarified.


----------



## rich p (12 Apr 2013)

The absurd thing is, comparing the owner of the site you indulge yourself in, to the taliban and the stasi, yet complain that others are over-reacting.


----------



## bianchi1 (12 Apr 2013)

These people are terrible role models. They spend so much time obsessing about their weight, sometimes turning to drugs...they rely on genes that determine how they develop and absolutely no account is given to knowledge, learning or what that stand for....they dress in clothes so tight it leaves nothing to the imagination, and lets face it are often ogled by the opposite sex. Recently i would bet that half of spend more on hair care products than books or newspapers. 


O, hang on that's the riders.


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

Best post in the entire thread Mr Bianchi1 sir!


----------



## Haitch (12 Apr 2013)

addictfreak said:


> ...light hearted banter ... childish banter ... banter none the less ... banter ...


 

That's that cleared up then.


----------



## coffeejo (12 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Because after cycling over 100km through mountain terrain I wouldn't want to be kissed by a woman with a face like a gorrila,simples!
> 
> Lets face it folks....elephants cant climb trees, ugly wimmin cant be podium girls, it's just a sad fact of life.


*WHAT?*


----------



## Spinney (12 Apr 2013)

coffeejo said:


> *WHAT?*


I was trying not to reply... I wonder if Shaun can give us some 'unlike' buttons?

I'm sure the slippery one will say he was only joking, and we have no sense of humour/cannot detect irony, etc.


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> I was trying not to reply...* I wonder if Shaun can give us some 'unlike' buttons?*
> 
> I'm sure the slippery one will say he was only joking, and we have no sense of humour/cannot detect irony, etc.


 

If he can, I hope he doesn't because then my lack of popularity will become evident and I will have a crisis of character!


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

It's true elephants cant climb tree's


----------



## RiflemanSmith (12 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> I was trying not to reply... I wonder if Shaun can give us some 'unlike' buttons?
> 
> I'm sure the slippery one will say he was only joking, and we have no sense of humour/cannot detect irony, etc.


 Unlike or dislike?


----------



## thom (12 Apr 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Unlike or dislike?


pedant - next you'll be complaining about SlipperySquid's stray apostrophe


----------



## ayceejay (12 Apr 2013)

Personally I think *using* 'Podium Girls' is accidental sexism. It is not the intention of the race promoters to demean the girls but this is how it could appear when added to other instances that show women as objects (page 3) and this sinks into the universal psyche unnoticed.
If I won a major race (fat chance) and I was handed my reward by, say Chris Hoy or Eddie Merckx (a cycling related hero) that would mean a lot more to than a bunch of flowers from a girl paid to smile and the kissing part would be eliminated too.


----------



## Lurpak (12 Apr 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I see no smiley in said post. Therefore....
> 
> Edit: but *lurpak* has *clarified*.



Heh, I'll give you that one.


----------



## yello (12 Apr 2013)

He'll do butter next time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2013)

yello said:


> He'll do butter next time.


I'll line 'em up....

...You knock 'em down!


----------



## thom (12 Apr 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I'll line 'em up....
> 
> ...You knock 'em down!


Spreading the love about


----------



## ColinJ (12 Apr 2013)

I've been away for an hour or two ...

I dare not look back to check - you aren't going all _'Last Tango in Paris'_ on us are you?


----------



## thom (12 Apr 2013)

ColinJ said:


> I've been away for an hour or two ...
> 
> I dare not look back to check - you aren't going all _'Last Tango in Paris'_ on us are you?


Trying to lighten the mood with butter based puns...


----------



## coffeejo (12 Apr 2013)

Is it reduced salt as well as lighter?


----------



## ColinJ (12 Apr 2013)

Let me put it this way ...

(Podium girls, not butter!)

Half a century ago (that makes me feel old!) I was taken to a circus. None of us saw anything wrong with lions and tigers being kept in cages, then brought out to be controlled by some dude wielding a whip, and made to perform stupid tricks for the crowd. Nowadays, however ...

Half a century ago, it also seemed perfectly reasonable to get a couple of attractive young women to stand about on a stage waiting for the all-conquering sporting hero to emerge, simper about, pretend to be impressed and shower him with silly fake kisses for the crowd. Nowadays, however ...


----------



## coffeejo (12 Apr 2013)

What about podium clowns?


----------



## Crackle (12 Apr 2013)

[QUOTE 2406291, member: 259"]So you're saying they should have lions instead of girls. I like your thinking! [/quote]

Technically not a lion but....


----------



## Crackle (12 Apr 2013)

coffeejo said:


> What about podium clowns?


Wot about forum clowns, we've got some spare?


----------



## hobbitonabike (12 Apr 2013)

Bet Sagan wouldn't grab a lions arse lol


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Apr 2013)

ianrauk said:


> As a Mod I am seriously offended by this.
> For 1, yeah like I would travel by motor vehicle and not a high end Ti or Carbon bicycle.
> and 2.. they are not of my unit of Taliban Mods. I mean, mine have Blue headbands?


 
... and of course the fact that none of the headgear passes EN1078!

Very poor show!


----------



## 400bhp (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> IMO the forum has changed and there does seem to be more morals policeWOMEN on here, no wonder a lot of the old crew have moved o to pastures new.
> 
> !


----------



## snailracer (12 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> It's true elephants cant climb tree's


----------



## Fab Foodie (12 Apr 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> In the same vein, 'tis only one less click to not see them.


 Yeah, clicks-out for the lads .....


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

Ok SnailRacer, video of that elephant climbing a tree, or we have to deal with ugly podium girls! Your call


----------



## snailracer (12 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Ok SnailRacer, video of that elephant climbing a tree, or we have to deal with ugly podium girls! Your call


Actually the story has a sad ending (which I wasn't aware of when I posted it) so I won't elaborate .


----------



## resal (12 Apr 2013)

With all this talk of Maggie Thatcher, I was telling a young man at work, how when I started in a factory (In an earlier thread, oldroadman thought this was a fate worse than death and escaping such ignominy would justify taking PEDs ! ) in the Harold Wilson & Ted Heath times, there was porn posted up throughout the place. In one office, there were two young girls. One refused point blank to go into the factory. The other would wait on the jobs she needed to go through the factory for, until I called by and then ask to walk through the factory with me because instead of a whole pile of vile whistling and taunting, she knew she could walk with me and nobody would try anything on. The a*seh*l*s that had no respect for her feelings were the guys who bought the Sun and stuck the page 3 girls up all around their machines to go with the porn posters and read porn every lunchtime. These were not nice people.

Cycling currently occupies a place in Sport similar to how the Sun positions itself within the portfolio of British newspapers. I don't see the Sun changing anytime soon.

Any corporate sponsor should run a mile until they can sort out the misogyny.


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

Oh the horror! 
r​


----------



## MacB (12 Apr 2013)

Hmmm, Bromptonboy and SS do both of you realise that the film Pretty Woman wasn't a documentary?


----------



## SlipperySquid (12 Apr 2013)

What that film about the extremely rich guy that never read the sun and paid for sex wasn't based on true events!!!! I have wasted my life.....


----------



## oldroadman (13 Apr 2013)

resal said:


> With all this talk of Maggie Thatcher, I was telling a young man at work, how when I started in a factory (In an earlier thread, oldroadman thought this was a fate worse than death and escaping such ignominy would justify taking PEDs ! ) in the Harold Wilson & Ted Heath times, there was porn posted up throughout the place. In one office, there were two young girls. One refused point blank to go into the factory. The other would wait on the jobs she needed to go through the factory for, until I called by and then ask to walk through the factory with me because instead of a whole pile of vile whistling and taunting, she knew she could walk with me and nobody would try anything on. The a*seh*l*s that had no respect for her feelings were the guys who bought the Sun and stuck the page 3 girls up all around their machines to go with the porn posters and read porn every lunchtime. These were not nice people.
> 
> Cycling currently occupies a place in Sport similar to how the Sun positions itself within the portfolio of British newspapers. I don't see the Sun changing anytime soon.
> 
> Any corporate sponsor should run a mile until they can sort out the misogyny.


 
Well, it certainly caused a deal of opinions to be posted, and now I know that I'm a mysoginist (sorry but I actually LIKE ladies) and that taking PEDS is OK by me (which is a gross misrepresentation) both courtesy of Resal, who is perfectly entitled to stae opinions and I support that right to do so. In the same way I support a right to vehemently disagree with the peculiar "logic" employed.
But never mind, the thread brought out some fascinating attitudes.
By the way, quite a few podium girls I know have degrees, so the bimbo argument is a bit stale.
I married one a long time ago, and she's bright, sparky, intelligent (degree again) and supported me brilliantly for many years. It was a choice for her to do the job simply for the good money to help through qualifications, but if the job didn't exist she would have found something else. She can't help (still) being great looking, after all, and it's done no harm to her career in business.


----------



## yello (13 Apr 2013)

I guess that makes it alright then.


----------



## SlipperySquid (13 Apr 2013)

Sorry "oldroadman" but I'm new to this forum so I haven't met your aquaintance before. Judging by your reply AND having first hand cough knowlege of the podium girl set (no disrespect meant by my wording by the way) I would think that you above all would have the relevant answers to the why's ,if's and but's regarding all things podium.........but alas no.It seems that there are more mighty forces at work,that common sense and knowlege can't over power.


----------



## theclaud (13 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> By the way, quite a few podium girls I know have degrees, so the bimbo argument is a bit stale.



Would that be the "bimbo argument" that no-one has actually made?


----------



## theclaud (13 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Sorry "oldroadman" but I'm new to this forum so I haven't met your aquaintance before. Judging by your reply AND having first hand cough knowlege of the podium girl set (no disrespect meant by my wording by the way) I would think that you above all would have the relevant answers to the why's ,if's and but's regarding all things podium.........but alas no.It seems that there are more mighty forces at work,that common sense and knowlege can't over power.


Ah... "common sense". Well, I suppose it's a whole lot easier than thinking.


----------



## SlipperySquid (13 Apr 2013)

Not really...but some people obviously have more of it than others?


----------



## Radchenister (13 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Would that be the "bimbo argument" that no-one has actually made?


 
No, yes, you're right there ... but the 'you're poisoning the mind of your daughter' one comes pretty close, not arguing, jus' sayin'  !


----------



## theclaud (13 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> No, you're right there ... but the 'you're poisoning the mind of your daughter' one comes pretty close, not arguing, jus' sayin'  !



No one said that either, did they?


----------



## Radchenister (13 Apr 2013)

Didn't they?


----------



## rich p (13 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Not really...but some people obviously have more of it than others?


Yep.


----------



## SlipperySquid (13 Apr 2013)

They did.


----------



## Radchenister (13 Apr 2013)

Come on then Rich P - give me an 'adult' response; or is this a one way valve discussion?


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Didn't they?





SlipperySquid said:


> They did.



Where?


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Sorry "oldroadman" but I'm new to this forum so I haven't met your aquaintance before. Judging by your reply AND having first hand cough knowlege of the podium girl set (no disrespect meant by my wording by the way) I would think that you above all would have the relevant answers to the why's ,if's and but's regarding all things podium.........but alas no.It seems that there are more mighty forces at work,that common sense and knowlege can't over power.


You're equating experience with common sense and knowledge, As you're new to the forum, I'll just point out that they are not the same or even equivalent and like I said earlier, one view does not make everyone else wrong.


----------



## srw (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> It's true elephants cant climb tree's


There's a close correlation between being unable to think clearly and being unable to express oneself in decent quality English.


----------



## srw (14 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Gosh. Really? I'd never have known if you hadn't waited until this post to tell us.


----------



## Venod (14 Apr 2013)

I cant be bothered to read all this thread but I gather someone posted a pic that someone took offense to, that was subsequently removed, now this is a cycling forum if you have you ever been on a club run a lot worse things than this are discussed and nobody is censored for what the say, why is it different on here ?


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Afnug said:


> I cant be bothered to read all this thread but I gather someone posted a pic that someone took offense to, that was subsequently removed, now this is a cycling forum if you have you ever been on a club run a lot worse things than this are discussed and nobody is censored for what the say, why is it different on here ?



I can't be bothered to answer this post. Why not write a better one, and I'll give it a go?


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Pft ... welcome to the world wide web, hang up your usual balanced opinion and pull up an extreme view  !


----------



## Venod (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> I can't be bothered to answer this post. Why not write a better one, and I'll give it a go?


 
So why have you answered ?


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Afnug said:


> So why have you answered ?


It's not an answer. Luckily, Mort's nicer than I am, so now you have an answer. I hope that clears things up for you.


----------



## Venod (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> It's not an answer. Luckily, Mort's nicer than I am, so now you have an answer. I hope that clears things up for you.


 
Yes your right about Mort, a good clear answer to a simple question, I am sorry my OP didn't meet your expectations !


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Afnug said:


> Yes your right about Mort, a good clear answer to a simple question, I am sorry my OP didn't meet your expectations !



Well, it was rather crap. I was tempted to reach for the Crapometer.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Apr 2013)

Afnug said:


> I cant be bothered to read all this thread but I gather someone posted a pic that someone took offense to, that was subsequently removed, now this is a cycling forum if you have you ever been on a club run a lot worse things than this are discussed and nobody is censored for what the say, why is it different on here ?


Because you leave that banter in the gutter?

The topic seems to me to be a sincere attempt to address whether podium girls are needed in this day and age. Posting up a pic of a woman's cleavage and commenting along the lines of ''two good reasons...'' distracted from the discussion. I've seen lots of outrageous behaviour from both men and women and I can't claim to be a stranger to smutty innuendo but the decision to moderate seems reasonable in this discussion.


----------



## rich p (14 Apr 2013)

Making a tit of oneself down the pub with a couple of friends, is different to making a tit of yourself in public, on the internet with strangers. If you can't spot the difference it probably means you're a tit.


----------



## addictfreak (14 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> Making a tit of oneself down the pub with a couple of friends, is different to making a tit of yourself in public, on the internet with strangers. If you can't spot the difference it probably means you're a tit.



I thought we couldn't mention tits! That's what got us into this


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

i


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> There's a close correlation between being unable to think clearly and being unable to express oneself in decent quality English.


 

Ouch!

Then again looking at your photo's of your tandem trip,I can understand why you may have a slight grudge against the more aesthetically pleasing people of the world.

Your turn.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

Crackle said:


> You're equating experience with common sense and knowledge, As you're new to the forum, I'll just point out that they are not the same or even equivalent and like I said earlier, one view does not make everyone else wrong.


 
Not the same or equivalent, no....but linked together with regards to this thread I believe yes! One view does not make another's wrong but may make the person sit back, think then re-evaluate there original musings.

Just saying like


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Not the same or equivalent, no....but linked together with regards to this thread I believe yes! One view does not make another's wrong but may make the person sit back, think then re-evaluate there original musings.
> 
> Just saying like


 
A beautiful podium girl with a degree still may not have thought through the symbolism of what she's doing or she may have done and thought what the hell or taken a contrary view. It doesn't make her conclusion right, you seem to think it does.

Was Sagan right to pinch the Podium girls bum, are Podium girls by their nature ripe for that kind of abuse. If your answer is yes, then you lie beyond my reasoning, if it's no, then keep going with your thinking and change the situation and circumstance, then think about what makes men think it might be OK to act like that.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

Crackle said:


> A beautiful podium girl with a degree still may not have thought through the symbolism of what she's doing or she may have done and thought what the hell or taken a contrary view. It doesn't make her conclusion right, you seem to think it does.
> 
> Was Sagan right to pinch the Podium girls bum, are Podium girls by their nature ripe for that kind of abuse. If your answer is yes, then you lie beyond my reasoning, if it's no, then keep going with your thinking and change the situation and circumstance, then think about what makes men think it might be OK to act like that.


 

You seem to think her reasoning makes her wrong? See that's the problem or the answer, she's the podium girl, not you! So whatever she does is right to her? There's loads of other subjects where people put in there monies worth, trying to get things changed etc,without actually asking the people at the center of the matter.
As to symbolism..lol..don't make me laugh. You really think that everyday people are going to be bothered about the "Symbolism?" making a mountain out of a molehill comes to mind! You may as well make all women wear the burkah in case a man finds them attractive! Oh hang on that's also oppressing women....what next? We could all dress the same and shave our heads? Become as "Asexual" as humanly possible? Would that be ok? We are supposed to be different and if one woman wants to express herself one way shouldn't be down to the likes of your goodself to tell her she's wrong?
Sorry bit of a rant but to be honest, do-gooding (insert worst expletive) really get my back up.

As to the Sagan incident, the smug barsteward should have been smacked in the face, end of. maybe even sued for assault (no pun intended).


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> You seem to think her reasoning makes her wrong? See that's the problem or the answer, she's the podium girl, not you! So whatever she does is right to her? There's loads of other subjects where people put in there monies worth, trying to get things changed etc,without actually asking the people at the center of the matter.
> As to symbolism..lol..don't make me laugh. You really think that everyday people are going to be bothered about the "Symbolism?" making a mountain out of a molehill comes to mind! You may as well make all women wear the burkah in case a man finds them attractive! Oh hang on that's also oppressing women....what next? We could all dress the same and shave our heads? Become as "Asexual" as humanly possible? Would that be ok? We are supposed to be different and if one woman wants to express herself one way shouldn't be down to the likes of your goodself to tell her she's wrong?
> Sorry bit of a rant but to be honest, do-gooding (insert worst expletive) really get my back up.
> 
> As to the Sagan incident, the smug barsteward should have been smacked in the face, end of. maybe even sued for assault (no pun intended).



He was merely inviting you to think. The invitation seems to have been wasted.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Ouch!
> 
> Then again looking at your photo's of your tandem trip,I can understand why you may have a slight grudge against the more aesthetically pleasing people of the world.
> 
> Your turn.



Nice! Going on your form to date, I'd strongly advise you against getting into a discussion of aesthetics.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Apr 2013)

This is a TEWD thread.

Thicko Early Warning Device thread.

Thanks peeps - you don't know who you are.


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

That's rather oppressive and patronising to ALL people  !


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

PS - Shall we move onto the subject of egocentricity?


----------



## 400bhp (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> That's rather opressive and patronising to ALL people  !


 
Infer what you like.

That's the point.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> He was merely inviting you to think. The invitation seems to have been wasted.


 
Not really and at the end of the day it swings both ways.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Nice! Going on your form to date, I'd strongly advise you against getting into a discussion of aesthetics.


Wow! you're like "Batman". Jumping in when ever there is a need? I'm sure some one else from your little clique will be along shortly to back you up?


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Not really and at the end of the day it swings both ways.



You've not used "stands to reason" yet.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)




----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> PS - Shall we move onto the subject of egocentricity?


I'll have the penne alla arrabiata.


----------



## User169 (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> You've not used "stands to reason" yet.




Slippery squid is Professor Emeritus of Common Sense at the University of Well It Stands To Reason Doesn’t It I Mean Are You Blind Or What. You can challenge him for tenure but unless you have a PhD in Only Saying What Everyone’s Thinking I wouldn’t rate your chances.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


>



Interesting self-image there.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Slippery squid is Professor Emeritus of Common Sense at the University of Well It Stands To Reason Doesn’t It I Mean Are You Blind Or What. You can challenge him for tenure but unless you have a PhD in Only Saying What Everyone’s Thinking I wouldn’t rate your chances.


 
That really did make me chortle....


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Slippery squid is Professor Emeritus of Common Sense at the University of Well It Stands To Reason Doesn’t It I Mean Are You Blind Or What. You can challenge him for tenure but unless you have a PhD in Only Saying What Everyone’s Thinking I wouldn’t rate your chances.



I just assumed he was playing some kind of idiot bingo.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> I'll have the penne alla arrabiata.


 
You'll need a tray.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> I just assumed he was playing some kind of idiot bingo.


 
No that game stopped pages ago when you got the full house....B'dumtish!


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> No that game stopped pages ago when you got the full house....B'dumtish!



OK well now that it's over perhaps we can get back on topic. The Podium "girls" convention is demeaning to women, insulting to men, idiotic and infantilising, and unworthy of the sport. It proclaims that men do stuff and women are for decoration and for the approbation of men's achievements. It values women only for looking nice and behaving like good little girls. It objectifies women, and validates men's right to look at and judge them, and (as we have seen recently) touch them or subject them to unwanted sexual attention. It trivialises women's cycling by implication. It is discriminatory. It perpetuates inequality. It validates men's right to look at and judge women, and (as we have seen recently) to touch them or subject them to unwanted sexual attention. It is patronising to the winning cyclists. Get rid.


----------



## yello (14 Apr 2013)

Can that be a sticky please?


----------



## rich p (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud has just posted the definitive answer - may as well close the thread now.
Why she didn't do so on page 1 and save all the hot air...


----------



## ColinJ (14 Apr 2013)

And we haven't even touched on the symbolism of all-conquering heroes spraying podium girls with champagne ...


----------



## resal (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> OK well now that it's over perhaps we can get back on topic. The Podium "girls" convention is demeaning to women, insulting to men, idiotic and infantilising, and unworthy of the sport. It proclaims that men do stuff and women are for decoration and for the approbation of men's achievements. It values women only for looking nice and behaving like good little girls. It objectifies women, and validates men's right to look at and judge them, and (as we have seen recently) touch them or subject them to unwanted sexual attention. It trivialises women's cycling by implication. It is discriminatory. It perpetuates inequality. It validates men's right to look at and judge women, and (as we have seen recently) to touch them or subject them to unwanted sexual attention. It is patronising to the winning cyclists. Get rid.


This is an excellent post. The only thing it misses out is the fact that the sport of cycling has an attitude to female competitors that has, as a product, everything cultivated by this kind of treatment. Other sports have it, but most decent sports do not. Certainly no sports I would watch with my daughter or wife display this offensive attitude - only the big prizes for the men - women can just do the warm up act, sometimes, if they are lucky, but they can appear on the big day.......
.......... as soft porn decoration.


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Perhaps our house is the exception to this view then, I respect it as a view but we don't find it offensive and I have canvassed everyone here - my 6 year old says they're a bit silly and she wouldn't want to be one ... so that's fine by me.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

(edit - I meant to quote rich p, but I'm posting from an unfamilar and extremely irritating device)

To be fair, people have pretty much said all that at various points upthread already. But they kept getting told to "lighten up". If you put it all together it becomes clear that the practice is entirely indefensible, and that all the "arguments" in its favour amount to is an angry backlash and an attempt to hold on to power over women. The podium "girls" convention ought to go the same way as The Black and White Minstrel Show, for very similar reasons.


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> *You seem to think her reasoning makes her wrong*? See that's the problem or the answer, she's the podium girl, not you! So whatever she does is right to her? There's loads of other subjects where people put in there monies worth, trying to get things changed etc,without actually asking the people at the center of the matter.
> As to symbolism..lol..don't make me laugh. You really think that everyday people are going to be bothered about the "Symbolism?" making a mountain out of a molehill comes to mind! You may as well make all women wear the burkah in case a man finds them attractive! Oh hang on that's also oppressing women....what next? We could all dress the same and shave our heads? Become as "Asexual" as humanly possible? Would that be ok? We are supposed to be different and if one woman wants to express herself one way shouldn't be down to the likes of your goodself to tell her she's wrong?
> Sorry bit of a rant but to be honest, do-gooding (insert worst expletive) really get my back up.
> 
> As to the Sagan incident, the smug barsteward should have been smacked in the face, end of. maybe even sued for assault (no pun intended).


 
No, you seem to think I think that.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Perhaps our house is the exception to this view then, I respect it as a view but we don't find it offensive and I have canvassed everyone here - my 6 year old says they're a bit silly and she wouldn't want to be one ... so that's fine by me.



She clearly has her head screwed on. But it's not about whether you find it offensive- it's about the corrosive effects of inequality. What if she wants to be professional a racing cyclist? What if she grows up and the men she meets treat her as a thing and not as a person? What if she is regarded by others as an accessory to the achievements of men?


----------



## Haitch (14 Apr 2013)

One benefit for some people is they help men cover up some of their inadequacies.


----------



## bianchi1 (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> She clearly has her head screwed on. But it's not about whether you find it offensive- it's about the corrosive effects of inequality. What if she wants to be professional a racing cyclist? What if she grows up and the men she meets treat her as a thing and not as a person? What if she is regarded by others as an accessory to the achievements of men?



She might be gay and like looking at podium girls!


----------



## coffeejo (14 Apr 2013)

Fancying women isn't an excuse for objectification


----------



## rich p (14 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> She might be gay and like looking at podium girls!


Maybe, but at the age of 6 she may have not given it a great deal of thought.


----------



## resal (14 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Well, it certainly caused a deal of opinions to be posted, and now I know that I'm a mysoginist (sorry but I actually LIKE ladies) and that taking PEDS is OK by me (which is a gross misrepresentation) both courtesy of Resal, who is perfectly entitled to stae opinions and I support that right to do so. In the same way I support a right to vehemently disagree with the peculiar "logic" employed.
> But never mind, the thread brought out some fascinating attitudes.
> By the way, quite a few podium girls I know have degrees, so the bimbo argument is a bit stale.
> I married one a long time ago, and she's bright, sparky, intelligent (degree again) and supported me brilliantly for many years. It was a choice for her to do the job simply for the good money to help through qualifications, but if the job didn't exist she would have found something else. She can't help (still) being great looking, after all, and it's done no harm to her career in business.


 
Oldroadman - these were your words @ http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/yates-and-de-jongh-also-booted-from-sky.116462/#post-2124533

"How quick are the majority of posters to condemn, when we are talking about history which happened before some were even out of school, in what was a very different world. People had mouths to feed, no excuse I know, but often the team domestique rider (average pro career maybe 4 years) needed to make what he/she could to try and secure a better future than a job in a factory."

So I think many would offer a translation to that as: " it is ok to cheat and rob others (this dumb idea that doping is a victimless crime is moronic) to avoid working in a factory. No excuse I know but can't you just understand it. I would do it if I was in their shoes ! "

Sadly, just as it appears you wanted to excuse Yates, presumably because you spent so many years admiring him, rather than recognising what was so obvious, for so long, to so many, as his past links makes it nearly incredible to believe he did anything other than rob and cheat others of their livelihoods, like the rest of his buddies on US Postal and elsewhere, you want to excuse the attitudes you have harboured for many years, during your engagement in cycling towards females, in their use as decoration to men in a man's sport.

I know of a young girl who helped me out with some youngsters for a few months in some very worthy work. She worked, during her undergraduate days, as a lap-dancer. I was very saddened to learn of this. She had access to funding, far greater than I had when I was an undergraduate and did not need to demean herself to that extent. She took a view that , why work for many hours stacking shelves or some such other minimum wage activity, when she could earn more in a few hours at a night club. There was some bizarre logic she offered (something of the style oldroadman would not doubt approve) about how doing this gave her more time to study and so she could get a better degree. Just think about the next step in that chain, shelf stacker, podium girl, lap dancer, ......... . She got a degree. Maybe she will marry one of her punters ? Perhaps he will write in 30 years time about the form of his partners mammary glands and how their preserved shape and their exposure at critical moments, has enabled her to advance through ( a male dominated ) life, to her advantage.

All of this is just a sad reflection on those who have managed our sport for the last 20 or 30 years. Someone will no doubt be able to recall the idiot UK promoter in the 1970's who hired a bunch of girls to ride topless on bikes. We desperately needed to move from that position to one matching say, triathlon. Certainly those at the top in the last 10 or so years have done very little.


----------



## bianchi1 (14 Apr 2013)

coffeejo said:


> Fancying women isn't an excuse for objectification



I've always found the phrase "fancying" a bit strange. 

Noun: A feeling of liking or attraction, typically one that is superficial or transient.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> She might be gay and like looking at podium girls!



Or, if we arrange things better, she might grow up developing some hitherto unrecognised form of healthy omnisexuality that is not formed entirely within the constraints of a heterosexist dominant culture. Just a thought.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

2408968 said:



> Is this available on a T-shirt?



Yes. Do you want the standard fit or the skinny low-cut one that shows off your tits?


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Or, if we arrange things better, she might grow up developing some hitherto unrecognised form of healthy omnisexuality that is not formed entirely within the constraints of a heterosexist dominant culture. Just a thought.


 
*Now you're talking  !*




theclaud said:


> She clearly has her head screwed on. But it's not about whether you find it offensive- it's about the corrosive effects of inequality. What if she wants to be professional a racing cyclist? What if she grows up and the men she meets treat her as a thing and not as a person? What if she is regarded by others as an accessory to the achievements of men?


 

To be honest, I totally agree with the logic but have already said podium people should go if they offend the majority, whether it really erodes your position or not is down to the individual's perspective IMO; I am prepared to accept it might do this of course but equally others may feel it doesn't ... I don't feel insisting on your view being the absolute position covers the 50 shades of grey in this world and really works in any debate. I still remain sceptical and surprised that podium girls (& boys?) are considered so detrimental - whenever talking to friends who are feeling put upon, I often refer to not acknowledging the power of the perpetrator but admittedly, this is usually as a defensive measure.

If anyone in our family wanted to become a professional cyclist I would look into being able to trust that the infrastructure around them was supportive, is this not improving, I would hope so?... and they would of course have their Mum and Dad behind them.

Put me in charge of organising an event, then I would view it from a different perspective of course - I would likely have a group of young (edit: or old for that matter) males and females do the prize giving role in parallel, perhaps picked from local schools or cycling clubs etc. The young athletes who lit the Olympic flame are a good example for instance: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19008471

The rest of your questions re oppression and accessorising the position of another might apply if either of them (my children) were to meet a male or female partner equally - we are a liberal family you see  - you had accepted the divides in the first response and then disabled them in the second above, which is essentially what I was digging for when discussing the position with Spinney.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Apr 2013)

resal said:


> Oldroadman - these were your words @ http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/yates-and-de-jongh-also-booted-from-sky.116462/#post-2124533
> 
> "How quick are the majority of posters to condemn, when we are talking about history which happened before some were even out of school, in what was a very different world. People had mouths to feed, no excuse I know, but often the team domestique rider (average pro career maybe 4 years) needed to make what he/she could to try and secure a better future than a job in a factory."
> 
> ...


 
Is it possible to keep threads separate, i.e. if you have something to say about his opinion on that matter, respond to it in that thread.

That is you you projecting your views on her.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

Radical feminism at it's finest here.

Yup, you are right..podium girls are ruining cycling for women everywhere....just like the podium women at football matches are ruining womens football....or any other sport for that matter "Down with Podiums!"...Though I think beach volley ball has a good following.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Apr 2013)

Slippery Squid.......... you are a doofus!


----------



## Haitch (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Radical feminism at it's finest here.
> 
> Yup, you are right..podium girls are ruining cycling for women everywhere....just like the podium women at football matches are ruining womens football....or any other sport for that matter "Down with Podiums!"...Though I think beach volley ball has a good following.


 
Do I get a TMN for saying all this in post 223 above?


----------



## MacB (14 Apr 2013)

is Slippery Squid a returnee of some description?


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Apr 2013)

He has the same qualities as backwash so he might be!


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

MacB said:


> is Slippery Squid a returnee of some description?


 
It was a thought.


----------



## resal (14 Apr 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> That is you you projecting your views on her.


 
It certainly is. However, with significant first hand experience of her, I know that in doing so I am only replicating the dilemma she faced.

Male dominated World. Funds required to complete studies. Don't want to go through the "pain" of living like a "hermit". [Not real pain, not really the life of a hermit.] Reward-effort ratio for readily obtained casual employment compromises study/leisure time. Reward-effort ratio at "alternate" activity is a compromise worth the goal. Wider issues can go to blazes, I need to be pragmatic to myself at this moment in time.

Haven't we seen over the last 30 years in this sport, how there are many individuals who are incapable of making the right decision, when faced with the facts of their circumstances ? Personal pragmatism trumps wider issues. Betsy Andreau projected her views on her husband. He took PEDs, she gave him resolve. He gave them up.That is why the wider issues need addressing.

"No podium girls" is such a tiny step, it does not even warrant the question. That anybody can waste time defending it, whether that defence is direct - ie the idiot posting a picture and saying .."here are TWO good reasons why they should be kept" to the, "hookers have made their own decision to earn their living lying on their backs, they are grown up and by doing so they are not forcing any other women to join them in the sex trade (and yes, I know nobody has posted that but there is only margin between what was posted and what I have posted) - is mind-boggling.


----------



## Crankarm (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Or, if we arrange things better, she might grow up developing some hitherto unrecognised form of healthy omnisexuality that is not formed entirely within the constraints of a heterosexist dominant culture. Just a thought.


 
Eeeek! What a thought just ...............


----------



## Crankarm (14 Apr 2013)

Are podium boys the solution?

Would even things out and shut the whingers/kiljoys up.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

MacB said:


> is Slippery Squid a returnee of some description?


In your post you equated myself saying "If you've got it flaunt it" to a news story on teenage suicide and rape?Overreact much?

To the rest of your good selves, no..I am not a returnee . I am actually a new forum member that has seen the likes of these threads before in many incarnations populated with the kind of folks that like to knit yoghurt and believe all are equal.
Well we are not equal, never will be either, it's genetics.

To think that podium girls are ruining cycling for females etc is ridiculous to say the least.The only people that see it as a problem are the ones that are looking to make it a problem...to whit....you lot.



Rob3rt said:


> Slippery Squid.......... you are a doofus!


 
Who uses the word "Doofus"?


----------



## MacB (14 Apr 2013)

I don't know, Doofus does seem to fit, anyway I'm not going to waste any more time on another 'common sense/stands to reason/it's only a laugh' clone.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> *Now you're talking  !*
> 
> 
> To be honest, I totally agree with the logic but have already said podium people should go if they offend the majority, whether it really erodes your position or not is down to the individual's perspective IMO; I am prepared to accept it might do this of course but equally others may feel it doesn't ... I don't feel insisting on your view being the absolute position covers the 50 shades of grey in this world and really works in any debate. I still remain sceptical and surprised that podium girls (& boys?) are considered so detrimental - whenever talking to friends who are feeling put upon, I often refer to not acknowledging the power of the perpetrator but admittedly, this is usually as a defensive measure.
> ...



The problem is that we don't live (or ride, or watch racing) in a world consisting of an undifferentiated soup of opinions, but in a world with real power relations which are both reflected and reinforced by representations, and in which ideas conflict and some prevail, and it matters which ones. Podium "girls" don't cause women's cycling to be disadvantaged in comparison to men's, and they don't cause men to subject women to unwanted sexual attention, but the Podium Girls convention arises from the same attitudes towards and beliefs about women that do cause these things. It's not about my view - it's a question of what podium girls mean, and whether it is possible to have a serious commitment to equality whilst simultaneously perpetuating such meanings. A male cyclist cannot pose with a podium "girl" without endorsing (inadvertently or otherwise) the idea that she is an ornament and accessory to his success, without appropriating her body as an object to be looked at and judged in the context of his power, without suggesting that she is part of the prize. It isn't optional or properly consensual on either side - it is expected that men who win races will participate in this ritual. So we are not talking about views, we are talking about the right for successful males to be symbolically awarded women as prizes, versus the right of women not to be demeaned and objectified for the benefit of men. There's simply no justification for it in any context which claims to value equality. You know this, which is why you would organise prize-giving differently. The Olympic ceremony, as you say, recognised this, so why should we not demand the same of professional cycling?

I'm not sure I understand your last point. Sexism describes the phenomenon that society is ordered in ways that systematically disadvantage women and confer advantage upon men. By definition it doesn't have a reverse or equivalent. I may be getting the wrong end of the stick...


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> the kind of folks that like to knit yoghurt and believe all are equal.



We already have a pet muppet who has practically copyrighted that phrase. He is tolerated and pitied, and regarded with a sort of grudging, exasperated affection, but I'm not sure there's enough of it to stretch any further...


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Perhaps we live in different worlds theclaud?

In my world the majority of people I know and associate with are decent and egalitarian, the 'doofusses' I avoid, not always possible I know but I certainly don't let them become the focus of my energy on this journey through life - you are free to seek to solve the problems you perceive in scenarios as you see fit of course  .


----------



## bianchi1 (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> I may be getting the wrong end of the stick...




Is this what you mean by a "hitherto unrecognised form of healthy omnisexuality that is not formed entirely within the constraints of a heterosexist dominant culture" ?


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Are podium boys the solution?



No. The solution is even more childishly simple. Which is just as well, given the standard of argument you are advancing.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Perhaps we live in different world's theclaud?
> 
> In my world the majority of people I know and associate with are decent and egalitarian, the 'doofusses' I avoid, not always possible I know but I certainly don't let them become the focus of my energy on this journey through life - you are free to seek to solve the problems you perceive in scenarios as you see fit of course  .



I don't disagree, and as they are so decent and egalitarian they won't really feel too hard done by if they don't get to ogle a line-up of trophy birds every time someone cycles faster than someone else.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Is this what you mean by a "hitherto unrecognised form of healthy omnisexuality that is not formed entirely within the constraints of a heterosexist dominant culture" ?





I'm deliberately using that sort of language to get on the Squid's tits. Which, I think we can all agree, are a magnificent set of norks, and I reckon Riflemansmith would give him one. I just mean hopefully things will continue to get better for young girls.


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Which was exactly where I came in theclaud  - those who see it as 'harmless' will just carry on regardless and those who see it as a 'problem' will be appeased - no prize giving needed ... just head straight home ... although who's going to announce who won the raffle?


----------



## bianchi1 (14 Apr 2013)

So is Rachel Riley, the new maths person, from countdown a good role model or not?

I remember a work mate of mine assuming she must be getting the answere fed to her through an earpiece. 

She is obviously a highly inteligent woman and yet the program (or her) do choose some 'provocative' clothing for her which results in a great number of the viewers finding it hard to concentate on her letters and numbers.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> We already have a pet muppet who has practically copyrighted that phrase. He is tolerated and pitied, and regarded with a sort of grudging, exasperated affection, but I'm not sure there's enough of it to stretch any further...





theclaud said:


> I'm deliberately using that sort of language to get on the Squid's tits. Which, I think we can all agree, are a magnificent set of norks, and I reckon Riflemansmith would give him one. I just mean hopefully things will continue to get better for young girls.


 

I think I may be getting on your "tit's" more than you are my own.This is an internet discussion after all? With all the bravado and sabre rattling that goes with it.But to bring up some ones sexuality as a joke point is a bit harsh wouldn't you say? I mean really? some one that is all for equality using a cheap put down like that? Tsk.

As to the pity etc I really don't want yours or anyone else's for that matter. I don't think you are the kind of person I would associate with in real life nor any of your loyal followers, so there's no problem there. You have your extreme views and though I don't agree with them,big deal? It makes no odds.



MacB said:


> I don't know, Doofus does seem to fit, anyway I'm not going to waste any more time on another 'common sense/stands to reason/it's only a laugh' clone.


 
Opps forgot about this one for a sec.

Yup used the common sense one...don't think I did the others? I'm not a clone either? Still not going to explain why rape and suicide go hand in hand with "If you've got it flaunt it?" Got any more gems you would like to bring to the table? Maybe how sugar on doughnuts is responsible for mass overpopulation or something?



2409145 said:


> Excellent, an off the peg insult for days when any sort of effort is just too much effort.


 
No not really.I think the description fits just fine but it is a Sunday after all .


----------



## coffeejo (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> To think that podium girls are ruining cycling for females etc is ridiculous to say the least.


Quite right. I agree 100%. It's sexist and lecherous behaviour which actually ruins cycling as a sport and a hobby, not forgetting day-to-day life.


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

coffeejo said:


> Quite right. I agree 100%. It's sexist and lecherous behaviour which actually ruins cycling as a sport and a hobby, not forgetting day-to-day life.


I'm finding my percentage disagreement/agreement between SS and TC to be pretty close.

I 99% disagree with SS and 99% agree with TC


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

Crackle said:


> I'm finding my percentage disagreement/agreement between SS and TC to be pretty close.
> 
> I 99% disagree with SS and 99% agree with TC


 
Still 1% in there though....nice!


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

But to what percentage of the population are you applying that agreement?


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

Just throwing this into the mix, a survey was don a couple of years ago on the exploitation of sex workers in the UK, and surprisingly, the majority working in the industry didn't consider themselves to be exploited. Now the reality is that we run the risk of projecting our own moral code onto those who chose this lifestyle, and that is as bad as any other form of meddling done in the name of religion or anything else.... 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> Just throwing this into the mix, a survey was don a couple of years ago on the exploitation of sex workers in the UK, and surprisingly, the majority working in the industry didn't consider themselves to be exploited. Now the reality is that we run the risk of projecting our own moral code onto those who chose this lifestyle, and that is as bad as any other form of meddling done in the name of religion or anything else....
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279


Now you've gone and done it!!!


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> Now you've gone and done it!!!



It's only Linfy. There's nothing to get excited about.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> Just throwing this into the mix, a survey was don a couple of years ago on the exploitation of sex workers in the UK, and surprisingly, the majority working in the industry didn't consider themselves to be exploited. Now the reality is that we run the risk of projecting our own moral code onto those who chose this lifestyle, and that is as bad as any other form of meddling done in the name of religion or anything else....
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279


Try and stay on topic, there's a good chap.


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> Just throwing this into the mix, a survey was don a couple of years ago on the exploitation of sex workers in the UK, and surprisingly, the majority working in the industry didn't consider themselves to be exploited. Now the reality is that we run the risk of projecting our own moral code onto those who chose this lifestyle, and that is as bad as any other form of meddling done in the name of religion or anything else....
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279


 
Yeah, that's really relevant. I'm glad you posted that.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> So is Rachel Riley, the new maths person, from countdown a good role model or not?
> 
> I remember a work mate of mine assuming she must be getting the answere fed to her through an earpiece.
> 
> She is obviously a highly inteligent woman and yet the program (or her) do choose some 'provocative' clothing for her which results in a great number of the viewers finding it hard to concentate on her letters and numbers.



I've never seen her, but it isn't necessary to divide women into good and bad role models. I assume her function is the same as Vorderman's, which is essential to the game itself and isn't reducible to eye-candy for male viewers and contestants. I think it's fair to say that Vorderman occupied an ambiguous position when it comes to female empowerment, but then she was always treading a difficult line. We wouldn't be having this conversation about a man doing the same job. I just hope that this Riley woman doesn't end up advertising F**k Me It's Margarine.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)




----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


>



I can't help it. I'm an incurable optimist.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> We wouldn't be having this conversation about a man doing the same job. .


Speak for yourself ducky ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

To be fair La Vorderman (former rear of the year) and I may be wrong here, didn't seem to let her intellect get in the way of herr physical talents and Rachel Riley seems happy to put hers too the fore. Whether that's letting the side down is not for me to decide.
BTW, you've really got it in for Margerine haven't you


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> BTW, you've really got it in for Margerine haven't you



Yes. It's a disgrace.


----------



## Venod (14 Apr 2013)

Are BikeRader members more enlightened than Cyclechat folks ?

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/vie...d=53e4b841ec436115cecbc14e28ff9ebe&start=2720


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Afnug said:


> Are BikeRader members more enlightened than Cyclechat folks ?
> 
> http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/vie...d=53e4b841ec436115cecbc14e28ff9ebe&start=2720



That just goes to the homepage for me. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bit?


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

Crackle said:


> Yeah, that's really relevant. I'm glad you posted that.


 
The vast majority of the entertainment industry has a big throbbing vein of sexuality running through it. If the women doing countdown looked liked Sharon and Tracey, how long would they last in the job ???
the eye candy bit is there to hold the interest when the subject itself is less than so....which is very much the case for countdown 
To deny the value of this in the name of empowerment is to run against hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. We are programmed by nature to like looking at people who have 'healthy genes'


----------



## 400bhp (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> The vast majority of the entertainment industry has a big throbbing vein of sexuality running through it. If the women doing countdown looked liked Sharon and Tracey, how long would they last in the job ???
> *the eye candy bit is there to hold the interest when the subject itself is less than so*....which is very much the case for countdown
> To deny the value of this in the name of empowerment is to run against hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. We are programmed by nature to like looking at people who have 'healthy genes'


 

Is it though?

For whom?

Why?


----------



## resal (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> Just throwing this into the mix, a survey was don a couple of years ago on the exploitation of sex workers in the UK, and surprisingly, the majority working in the industry didn't consider themselves to be exploited. Now the reality is that we run the risk of projecting our own moral code onto those who chose this lifestyle, and that is as bad as any other form of meddling done in the name of religion or anything else....
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279


On topic easily. The same point just taken to an extreme. This dilemma is the same "its their choice, see, when I ask them, they say they want to do it, let us not stand in the way of freedom of decision." Yes they have decided and undoubtedly they have a set of circumstances and backgrounds that means they can easily justify becoming sex workers. However, the fact that they come out with the statement that they don't consider themselves exploited, does not mean they or the deed, is right. David Barry did not think he was being exploited on Lance's team, for many a long year. He and Dede encouraged young David Zabreski to "not be exploited" and use epo. I am sure Barry thought, as he enjoyed his lifestyle and fame, that he was entirely right, right up to the point were somebody told him he had been named by Zabreski and his Sky fell in.

I doubt that 1 in 100 podium girls feels exploited. Good money for a bit of harmless fun. The ones who would, don't do it. The podium girls get paid a premium exactly because of that ratio. Model that back to the sex worker and the same logic applies.

The argument gets straight back to - if in a position to exploit - should you ? Cycle sport has no need to exploit these girls whether they want to do the job (which undoubtedly they do) or not.


----------



## Venod (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> That just goes to the homepage for me. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bit?


 
You can do better than that.


----------



## theclaud (14 Apr 2013)

Afnug said:


> You can do better than that.


Huh? It links to the homepage and asks me to login or sign up. I'm not going to sign up, so it would be useful if you could give us a clue as to what the link is about.


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Resal, so it's a case of being 'exploited' again IYO, are they really exploited though; do they whisk them off to apres-stage bondage parties or something?

I am beginning to think we have a cackle of new age Mary Whitehouse impersonators on board.

Your chosen scenarios and the connectivity between them might be a touch David Icke perhaps - if you can give me a 'dead in their bed from EPO' equivalent for the podium girl's role, then I'll bow to the parallel example though of course.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

resal said:


> Cycle sport has no need to exploit these girls whether they want to do the job (which undoubtedly they do) or not.


But the debate here is whether Podium girls are genuinely exploited or merely employed?


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> The vast majority of the entertainment industry has a big throbbing vein of sexuality running through it. If the women doing countdown looked liked Sharon and Tracey, how long would they last in the job ???
> the eye candy bit is there to hold the interest when the subject itself is less than so....which is very much the case for countdown
> To deny the value of this in the name of empowerment is to run against hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. We are programmed by nature to like looking at people who have 'healthy genes'


 
I've not really denied it, just said it's not done on an equal footing and therefore contributes to an unequal society. Just because it happens and people choose it doesn't make it a good choice.

But I'm not sure how you got to


Linford said:


> Now the reality is that we run the risk of projecting our own moral code onto those who chose this lifestyle, and that is as bad as any other form of meddling done in the name of religion or anything else....


 
From
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279

This is a report about migrant sex workers from fairly desperate situations trying to climb the social ladder and make a life for themselves and using sex to do it.

The equivalent of you not having any prospects or future and being offered a job down the sewers whacking rats with a shovel. High risk of drowning/being eaten by a sewer living crocodile, and still not paying enough to live. Or deciding to work as a rent boy for a few years and hoping you get some liberal minded chaps like Slippery Squid who respects your right to proffer your posterior, whilst actively hoping you don't come across some lefty liberal like me, who wants you to have a better life without needing to whack rats with a shovel or proffer your posterior.


----------



## Haitch (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Yes. It's a disgrace.




The only thing worse than margarine is traces of margarine in the honey jar.


----------



## ColinJ (14 Apr 2013)

Afnug said:


> Are BikeRader members more enlightened than Cyclechat folks ?
> 
> http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/vie...d=53e4b841ec436115cecbc14e28ff9ebe&start=2720


_*No*_, which is why I hardly ever visit that forum any more!


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

I'm seriously glad that most of the regular knowledgeable posters on this sub-forum - Pro Cycling and Racing - have taken the stance they have regarding this issue. I hope it means something to female cyclists and racing cyclists on this forum alike that not all of the sport is of the opinion that this anachronism is worthwhile. To me, the podium girls are crap, end of and what they represent is even lower. It has no place in the sport - a sport that involves and has involved women at the highest level. Demeaning is not enough of a word - self-destructive would be better, along with embarrassing. Sagan might be young but he acted like a twat and whilst I have no doubt that these women agreed to the role, this alters nothing as has been inferred all along. Impressions are everything...

One of the best things I saw this year indirectly cycling related was the way that Fabian Cancellara gave his wife (?) a massive hug after he'd won the Tour of Flanders. It almost brought a tear to the eye. Behind every man....etc

And a big well done to the Mods from a regular on this sub-forum for removing what you did and a massive downer on those who've taken it upon themselves to turn such a great sub-forum into pity.

As an aside how many men out there have been 'dropped' by female cyclists who are simply either stronger, better, more technically able than you on either a competitive event, a sportive or a race? I have. Whilst I'm no Chris Froome, I'd suggest that some on here have a think about how they perceive that and whether given this, they still think it fair or appropriate, to have them on the podium instead, handing out flowers? May be you should do it instead?


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Ah, another preacher, are your last 7 words a genuine offer because I would be happy to do the role?

I will shake their hands and give them flowers, even pose for a kiss if they wish .

Disproportionation and over reactions are rife, are you on the pull or something?


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> Is it though?
> 
> For whom?
> 
> Why?


 
People like looking at beautiful people....even other beautiful people like looking at beautiful people (heck, I see it all the time with my sprog) This is human nature. Their presence makes watching the program easier on the eyes (whether some like to admit that or not) It is no accident that they employed Vorderman and Riley (obviously they wouldn't have employed gargoyles even if they had the same amount of brains)

How many times have I seen people posting up here about Vicky Pendleton. Her huge fan club is in no small part to the fact she is a very attractive lady.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Apr 2013)

what a load of crap


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> what a load of crap


 
If that was for me, you might elaborate ?


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Ah, another preacher, are your last 7 words a genuine offer because I would be happy to do the role?
> 
> I will shake their hands and give them flowers, even pose for a kiss if they wish .
> 
> Disproportionation and over reactions are rife, are you on the pull or something?


 
And who might I be on the pull for?

Your comments say it all...you address what you perceive I'm saying whilst failing miserably at addressing what I actually said.

And Linford, have you thought of the possibility that perhaps the reason she is so attractive to so many people is that she is doing what she is good at? Cycling, not handing out kisses and flowers?


----------



## 400bhp (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> If that was for me, you might elaborate ?


 
Yes it was for you. No, I'm not elaborating as, given your MO, you won't listen.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> As an aside how many men out there have been 'dropped' by female cyclists who are simply either stronger, better, more technically able than you on either a competitive event, a sportive or a race? I have. Whilst I'm no Chris Froome, I'd suggest that some on here have a think about how they perceive that and whether given this, they still think it fair or appropriate, to have them on the podium instead, handing out flowers? May be you should do it instead?


 
I'm struggling a bit with this topic, because I'm not connecting girls that ride bikes better than me or do maths better than me or do anything better than me with girls that look nicer than me and hand out flowers better than me. I'd be happy to hand out flowers if it helped or having Baroness Dr Susan Greenfield handing out flowers or Professor Steven Hawkins, I didn't think it that important, though given a choice of flower hander-outer I would not be unhappy if they were attractive or otherly interesting (like a former sport star). I sadly admit that I also enjoy looking at pretty girls (and on occasions men too), on TV, on the tube, the high street wherever. If that makes me a bad person, then I'm a bad person.
I've also been thinking about my own daughters and how would I feel about them being Podium girls and I can't say I'd object. I've also asked the Biology Student daughter what she thinks and she's OK with Podium girls. There again she is doing some 'clothes modelling' later this week so maybe she's not the right candidate to ask...


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Yep, MsrR, hands up, I admit it, failing miserably to take the thread seriously anymore and resorting to bored trolling - have fun all, out of this one now  .


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> And who might I be on the pull for?
> 
> Your comments say it all...you address what you perceive I'm saying whilst failing miserably at addressing what I actually said.
> 
> And Linford, have you thought of the possibility that perhaps the reason she is so attractive to so many people is that she is doing what she is good at? Cycling, not handing out kisses and flowers?


 
There are plenty of people who have competed at the top of the game very successfully, but have had nowhere near the exposure (or sponsorship) of her. She is now earning over £1 million a year through her contracts with hair and makeup companies. You don't have to like it to acknowledge the validity of it....


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> Yes it was for you. No, I'm not elaborating as, given your MO, you won't listen.


 
If you don't think your POV has the robustness to stand up to me or mine, then I can understand why you are keen to use throwaway comments.....


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Yep, MsrR, hands up, I admit it, failing miserably to take the thread seriously anymore and resorting to bored trolling - have fun all, out of this one now  .


 
Good man, given some of your comments you're doing yourself a favour.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

I've been liked by Linf and Radchenister


----------



## bianchi1 (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'm struggling a bit with this topic, because I'm not connecting girls that ride bikes better than me or do maths better than me or do anything better than me with girls that look nicer than me and hand out flowers better than me. I'd be happy to hand out flowers if it helped or having Baroness Dr Susan Greenfield handing out flowers or Professor Steven Hawkins, I didn't think it that important, though given a choice of flower hander-outer I would not be unhappy if they were attractive or otherly interesting (like a former sport star). I sadly admit that I also enjoy looking at pretty girls (and on occasions men too), on TV, on the tube, the high street wherever. If that makes me a bad person, then I'm a bad person.
> I've also been thinking about my own daughters and how would I feel about them being Podium girls and I can't say I'd object. I've also asked the Biology Student daughter what she thinks and she's OK with Podium girls. There again she is doing some 'clothes modelling' later this week so maybe she's not the right candidate to ask...



This post sums up exactly how I feel. I have a daughter who is excelling at school and yet loves her hair straighteners, make up and for that matter ogling various untallented boy bands. I have a son who's head is turned by a pretty girl, but would rather spend a day kicking a ball with Messi (he's still young)

The day members of the opposite sex (or sexualities) stop placing a value on beauty is a long, long way off. Until then sex sells, it always has.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


>


 Don't give up ...


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'm struggling a bit with this topic, because I'm not connecting girls that ride bikes better than me or do maths better than me or do anything better than me with girls that look nicer than me and hand out flowers better than me. I'd be happy to hand out flowers if it helped or having Baroness Dr Susan Greenfield handing out flowers or Professor Steven Hawkins, I didn't think it that important, though given a choice of flower hander-outer I would not be unhappy if they were attractive or otherly interesting (like a former sport star). I sadly admit that I also enjoy looking at pretty girls (and on occasions men too), on TV, on the tube, the high street wherever. If that makes me a bad person, then I'm a bad person.
> I've also been thinking about my own daughters and how would I feel about them being Podium girls and I can't say I'd object. I've also asked the Biology Student daughter what she thinks and she's OK with Podium girls. There again she is doing some 'clothes modelling' later this week so maybe she's not the right candidate to ask...


 
There's nothing sad about enjoying the opposite sex Fab Foodie, that's not what I'm saying. I reckon the human race might be a bit scuppered if that were the case...

My point, like so many others have put so well, is that cycling is a sport that involves women at all levels and to involve, pointlessly in my own opinion, podium girls who look nice and perpetuate the idea that that is what womankind alone should represent, is counter-productive to the sport itself. This isn't as tough a concept as some are making it. People can read as much into this thread as they like but it's as simple as that - the objectification of a human being as a limited entity in itself and good for only one thing in the context given and that, as I've said, is crap. Not to mention oppressive.

As a father of a daughter myself, like yourself, I don't want the prevalent image of the sport to be one where she, if she decides to take up cycling, is considered more of a podium girl than a Victoria Pendleton. She'll have plenty of time in her life to be as attractive as she wants to be to the right person, as opposed a piece of eye-candy on a stage that should know better, given the abilities of some of the same sex within that same sport itself.


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Ah MsrR, you are so charming, 'given some of your comments', lol, your critical analysis is scalpel like ... pft ... now's the time for you to look up sociocentricity. 

Night all .


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> I've been liked by Linf and Radchenister


 
You make sense sometimes


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

And another thing...this thread will never get totally candid opinions out of some of its contributors with TC and TMN acting as the emancipated milk monitors


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> My point, like so many others have put so well, is that cycling is a sport that involves women at all levels and to involve, pointlessly in my own opinion, podium girls who look nice and perpetuate the idea that that is what womankind alone should represent, is counter-productive to the sport itself. This isn't as tough a concept as some are making it.


 Well this is the bit that I'm not quite on board with because I don't in my mind (thus far) equate podium girls as perpetuating what womankind alone should represent .... hence I don't object that some want/choose to look pretty and hand-out flowers.


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

[QUOTE 2409670, member: 45"]I was once dropped by a young woman on my ride home from work in Birmingham. She was quite cute.[/quote]


I was totally dropped on a cross country run up Leckhampton Hill by a '5ft nothing' girl in my school year (like I'd just started running in reverese).....I later found out that she was running long distance in county races with the Cheltenham Harriers which made me feel a whole lot better.


----------



## MacB (14 Apr 2013)

Here's a link stolen from a post by Julian on YACF which I think is worth a read, the thread was about casual sexism by the way:-

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/02/i-am-not-political-football.html

the only thing I'd add is our 'clever men' are a bit below par but they are trying bless them


----------



## 400bhp (14 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> If you don't think your POV has the robustness to stand up to me or mine, then I can understand why you are keen to use throwaway comments.....


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> Well this is the bit that I'm not quite on board with because I don't in my mind (thus far) equate podium girls as perpetuating what womankind alone should represent .... hence I don't object that some want/choose to look pretty and hand-out flowers.


 
I mean in regard to the sport. Do you think after the Podium Girls facade that the genuine achievements of British female cyclists would or could be taken as seriously as they would if there weren't podium girls? I genuinely don't think they would be taken as seriously. They become secondary because within the sport itself the idea is perpetuated that women are there for the flowers and kisses. People might offer to do it the other way around but I'm not sure the same thing does happen the other way around...?

As I say, it denigrates the female sport of cycling and aside the bollocks that some people are spouting it has nothing to do with the issue of attractiveness, it's about objectification.


----------



## srw (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> Well this is the bit that I'm not quite on board with because I don't in my mind (thus far) equate podium girls as perpetuating what womankind alone should represent .... hence I don't object that some want/choose to look pretty and hand-out flowers.


It's symbolic, isn't it? The only place that women exist in professional cycling is as eye-candy (and bum-pinching-fodder) for men who should know better. Imagine if Roger Federer had had his Wimbledon trophies presented by Serena and Venus Williams in miniskirts rather than the Duke of Kent in a tweed suit. That's the closest parallel I can draw.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Apr 2013)

Has anyone ever gone to a cycling event/presentation to look at the podium girls? Apart from those who are dating, courting*, or married to them, I'd guess the answer would be very close to zero. And that is their relevance to cycling.


*there's a very quaint word.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> It's symbolic, isn't it? The only place that women exist in professional cycling is as eye-candy (and bum-pinching-fodder) for men who should know better. Imagine if Roger Federer had had his Wimbledon trophies presented by Serena and Venus Williams in miniskirts rather than the Duke of Kent in a tweed suit. That's the closest parallel I can draw.


 
Spot on.


----------



## srw (14 Apr 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Has anyone ever gone to a cycling event/presentation to look at the podium girls? Apart from those who are dating, courting*, or married to them, I'd guess the answer would be very close to zero. And that is their relevance to cycling.


No. Their relevance to cycling is that they are (in general) highly competent racing cyclists - as good as the people they're simpering at - who are relegated to a position as dolly-birds because there isn't the money in professional cycling for women as there is in professional cycling for men.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> I mean in regard to the sport. Do you think after the Podium Girls facade that the genuine achievements of British female cyclists would or could be taken as seriously as they would if there weren't podium girls? I genuinely don't think they would be taken as seriously. They become secondary because within the sport itself the idea is perpetuated that women are there for the flowers and kisses. People might offer to do it the other way around but I'm not sure the same thing does happen the other way around...?
> 
> As I say, it denigrates the female sport of cycling and aside the bollocks that some people are spouting it has nothing to do with the issue of attractiveness, *it's about objectification*.


 
Actually, going deeper than that, it's about power and the lack of it that females have at the top (of sport, in this particular case).

Objectification is an outcome of that power.


----------



## bianchi1 (14 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> It's symbolic, isn't it? The only place that women exist in professional cycling is as eye-candy (and bum-pinching-fodder) for men who should know better. Imagine if Roger Federer had had his Wimbledon trophies presented by Serena and Venus Williams in miniskirts rather than the Duke of Kent in a tweed suit. That's the closest parallel I can draw.



Tennis probabley not the best sport to use as a shining example of how women sport stars choose to be represented!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/13812223

I even noticed a male scantily dressed dancer in the vid. Being exploited?


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> I mean in regard to the sport. Do you think *after the Podium Girls facade* that the genuine achievements of British female cyclists would or could be taken as seriously as they would if there weren't podium girls? I genuinely don't think they would be taken as seriously. .


 
Did I miss some specific incident here? I've not read every page of this. 
If you're asking me whether I think the prescence of podium girls detracts from the achievements of British female cyclists, then I don't. If there's some other angle on this that I've missed then I apologise.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> Did I miss some specific incident here? I've not read every page of this.
> If you're asking me whether I think the prescence of podium girls detracts from the achievements of British female cyclists, then I don't. If there's some other angle on this that I've missed then I apologise.


 
No, you didn't miss any incident but I can only rehash what I've already said...it detracts from the sport, IMO, and demeans a tradition creating stereotype and the recycling of that false stereotype...

This is what females in cycling are a part of Fab, not podium girls.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> It's symbolic, isn't it? The only place that women exist in professional cycling is as eye-candy (and bum-pinching-fodder) for men who should know better. Imagine if Roger Federer had had his Wimbledon trophies presented by Serena and Venus Williams in miniskirts rather than the Duke of Kent in a tweed suit. That's the closest parallel I can draw.


 OK, I'm beginning to think I've missed a story here. Were British female pro-cyclists used as podium girls somewhere?


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> Did I miss some specific incident here? I've not read every page of this.
> If you're asking me whether I think the prescence of podium girls detracts from the achievements of British female cyclists, then I don't. If there's some other angle on this that I've missed then I apologise.


----------



## oldroadman (14 Apr 2013)

resal said:


> Oldroadman - these were your words @ http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/yates-and-de-jongh-also-booted-from-sky.116462/#post-2124533
> 
> "How quick are the majority of posters to condemn, when we are talking about history which happened before some were even out of school, in what was a very different world. People had mouths to feed, no excuse I know, but often the team domestique rider (average pro career maybe 4 years) needed to make what he/she could to try and secure a better future than a job in a factory."
> 
> ...


 Most interesting observations. Others may have their opinions as to whether they concur with conclusions that appear to be drawn. Enjoy adding 2+2 and getting multiples of 7, an interesting trick when attempting to arrive at a conclusion which is desired rather than an ouitcome which may not fithe expectation.


----------



## oldroadman (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> OK, I'm beginning to think I've missed a story here. Were British female pro-cyclists used as podium girls somewhere?


Er, not to anyone's knowledge who has followed the sport for some years. Some names would be interesting, but I fear they will be challenging to locate. There's a difference between what someone wants to believe versus actual facts.


----------



## MacB (14 Apr 2013)

Crackle said:


>


 
oooh, caption competition - I think that move is called the slippery squid


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> OK, I'm beginning to think I've missed a story here. Were British female pro-cyclists used as podium girls somewhere?


 
No you haven't missed anything and I've tried to say that's the case FF.

Perhaps you are lacking the connection between a sport which on the one hand has within its ranks many excellent female riders and the same sport that denigrates all women in one pointless act, achieving nothing but stereotyping...

...are you happy with that in the sport you love? I'm not, especially given its pointlessness when the same sport is trying to bring in more women to the sport. Those efforts - bringing in more women to the sport - may become pointless given this ridiculous, archaic act. That is all.

And is it really worth it?


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> No, you didn't miss any incident but I can only rehash what I've already said...it detracts from the sport, IMO, and demeans a tradition creating stereotype and the recycling of that false stereotype...
> 
> This is what females in cycling are a part of Fab, not podium girls.
> 
> View attachment 21996


 
You don't need to rehash any more I understand your view. It's that I don't agree (yet)with the detracting from the sport bit. 
I can't say that I remember any of the podium girls or flower-presenters of most kinds of events, podium girls/guys/dignitaries/goats whatever don't impact my view of women and their achievements in sport. 

And please don't patronise me about not knowing what women in cycling are a part of, having spent a lot of effort in supporting and growing womens cycling locally. First women-only ride of the season this morning.


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

MacB said:


> oooh, caption competition - I think that move is called the slippery squid


A picture that causes outrage, you decide to make fun of? Really? After everything your friends have said in this thread you pull this one out of the bag?
You reek of desperation and to put it bluntly are about as funny as cancer.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> No. Their relevance to cycling is that they are (in general) highly competent racing cyclists - as good as the people they're simpering at - who are relegated to a position as dolly-birds because there isn't the money in professional cycling for women as there is in professional cycling for men.


 OK, so that's something I didn't know.
So why isn't there the money in Women's cycling?


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> You don't need to rehash any more I understand your view. It's that I don't agree (yet)with the detracting from the sport bit.
> I can't say that I remember any of the podium girls or flower-presenters of most kinds of events, podium girls/guys/dignitaries/goats whatever don't impact my view of women and their achievements in sport.
> 
> And please don't patronise me about not knowing what women in cycling are a part of, having spent a lot of effort in supporting and growing womens cycling locally. First women-only ride of the season this morning.


 
I'm not patronising you FF.

Fair play for your efforts locally (and that's not meant as condescending either).

I stand by my points made earlier; that's all.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> No you haven't missed anything and I've tried to say that's the case FF.
> Perhaps you are lacking the connection between a sport which on the one hand has within its ranks many excellent female riders and the same sport that denigrates all women in one pointless act, achieving nothing but stereotyping...
> 
> ...are you happy with that in the sport you love? I'm not, especially given its pointlessness when the same sport is trying to bring in more women to the sport. Those efforts - bringing in more women to the sport - may become pointless given this ridiculous, archaic act. That is all.
> And is it really worth it?


 
Well I missed that apparently Podium girls are pro female cyclists.
Yes I'm lacking the connection between excellence in female cycling and pretty girls handing-out flowers.
Yes, I'm lacking the connection that podium girls denigrate all women, but I see the argument.
I'm not entirely happy with the sport I love. Race radios should be banned and I agree that womens Cycling needs greater coverage and funding, but I don't agree with your assertion that this is in any way due to podium girls.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> I'm not patronising you FF.
> 
> Fair play for your efforts locally (and that's not meant as condescending either).
> 
> I stand by my points made earlier; that's all.


No worries, for now we'll have to agree to disagree, though I'm willing to be swayed.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> *Well I missed that apparently Podium girls are pro female cyclists.*
> Yes I'm lacking the connection between excellence in female cycling and pretty girls handing-out flowers.
> Yes, I'm lacking the connection that podium girls denigrate all women, but I see the argument.
> I'm not entirely happy with the sport I love. Race radios should be banned and I agree that womens Cycling needs greater coverage and funding, but I don't agree with your assertion that this is in any way due to podium girls.


 
I'm not so sure they are Fab Foodie, probably for the same reason that so many of us on here think it 'wrong' for want of a better word.

Wouldn't Victoria Pendleton and the many other women professionals both past and present consider themselves denigrated by being podium girls as opposed what they actually are/were?


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> I'm not so sure they are Fab Foodie, probably for the same reason that so many of us on here think it 'wrong' for want of a better word.
> 
> Wouldn't Victoria Pendleton and the many other women professionals both past and present consider themselves denigrated by being podium girls as opposed what they actually are/were?


 You mean this Victoria Pendleton?


----------



## SlipperySquid (14 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> You mean this Victoria Pendleton?
> View attachment 21998


 
 See, the poor woman can't even afford a decent pair of tights


----------



## Radchenister (14 Apr 2013)

Was going to wide birth this thread but can't resist saying blimey Fab Foodie, you were worried I've associated myself with YOU by liking your posts and you're now posting pics of actual scantily clad female cyclist 'role models' (pun?) . 

Blows my call for tolerence, perspective, moderate liberalism and empathy for all points of view straight out the water  .


----------



## Crankarm (14 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> No. The solution is even more childishly simple. Which is just as well, given the standard of argument you are advancing.


 
So please enlighten us with your childish simple solution.


----------



## Buddfox (15 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> Well I missed that apparently Podium girls are pro female cyclists.
> Yes I'm lacking the connection between excellence in female cycling and pretty girls handing-out flowers.
> Yes, I'm lacking the connection that podium girls denigrate all women, but I see the argument.
> I'm not entirely happy with the sport I love. Race radios should be banned and I agree that womens Cycling needs greater coverage and funding, but I don't agree with your assertion that this is in any way due to podium girls.



I have found following the Twitter feed @everydaysexism quite informative for getting real life examples of these sorts of things. Eye opening (actually shocking and utterly depressing)...


----------



## Crankarm (15 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> You mean this Victoria Pendleton?
> View attachment 21998


 
Eughhh! Guaranteed to lead to an exessive level of testosterone and a possible ban for doping.

How come she was on your bed or you hers FF???


----------



## Crankarm (15 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


>


 
Carry on you might knock yourself permanently unconscious.


----------



## tigger (15 Apr 2013)

SlipperySquid said:


> and to put it bluntly are about as funny as cancer.



You're definitely not putting it mildly!


----------



## Crankarm (15 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> The problem is that we don't live (or ride, or watch racing) in a world consisting of an undifferentiated soup of opinions, but in a world with real power relations which are both reflected and reinforced by representations, and in which ideas conflict and some prevail, and it matters which ones. Podium "girls" don't cause women's cycling to be disadvantaged in comparison to men's, and they don't cause men to subject women to unwanted sexual attention, but the Podium Girls convention arises from the same attitudes towards and beliefs about women that do cause these things. It's not about my view - it's a question of what podium girls mean, and whether it is possible to have a serious commitment to equality whilst simultaneously perpetuating such meanings. A male cyclist cannot pose with a podium "girl" without endorsing (inadvertently or otherwise) the idea that she is an ornament and accessory to his success, without appropriating her body as an object to be looked at and judged in the context of his power, without suggesting that she is part of the prize. It isn't optional or properly consensual on either side - it is expected that men who win races will participate in this ritual. So we are not talking about views, we are talking about the right for successful males to be symbolically awarded women as prizes, versus the right of women not to be demeaned and objectified for the benefit of men. There's simply no justification for it in any context which claims to value equality. You know this, which is why you would organise prize-giving differently. The Olympic ceremony, as you say, recognised this, so why should we not demand the same of professional cycling?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your last point. Sexism describes the phenomenon that society is ordered in ways that systematically disadvantage women and confer advantage upon men. By definition it doesn't have a reverse or equivalent. I may be getting the wrong end of the stick...


 
I've a sneaking suspicion theclaude has a latent desire to be a podium girl.


----------



## theclaud (15 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Was going to wide birth this thread but can't resist saying blimey Fab Foodie, you were worried I've associated myself with YOU by liking your posts and you're now posting pics of actual scantily clad female cyclist 'role models' (pun?) .
> 
> Blows my call for tolerence, perspective, moderate liberalism and empathy for all points of view straight out the water  .



There's a context for what Foodie posted - it illuminated the content of his post. You are simply wrong to associate criticism of the podium girls convention with Mary-Whitehouse moralism. It has nothing whatever to do with a distaste for female sexuality. Quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## theclaud (15 Apr 2013)

Crankarm said:


> I've a sneaking suspicion theclaude has a latent desire to be a podium girl.



Funnily enough, I have some not-so-sneaking suspicions about you as well.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (15 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> No. Their relevance to cycling is that [podium girls] are (in general) highly competent racing cyclists - as good as the people they're simpering at - who are relegated to a position as dolly-birds because there isn't the money in professional cycling for women as there is in professional cycling for men.


Though it's a little clouded by reference to pro-cyclists, oldroadman's post #329 suggests that this may not be the case. Even if it were, I've never heard podium girls' names or palmarès get a mention - they are there as adornments not as cyclists. I only know the name Maja Leye from the press coverage that followed Sagan's antics.


----------



## Radchenister (15 Apr 2013)

You're absolutely right of course theclaud, that's what Mary Whitehouse stood for then.


----------



## User169 (15 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> You don't need to rehash any more I understand your view. It's that I don't agree (yet)with the detracting from the sport bit.
> I can't say that I remember any of the podium girls or flower-presenters of most kinds of events, podium girls/guys/dignitaries/goats whatever don't impact my view of women and their achievements in sport.


 
Put it this way. I suspect more people will know the name of the podium girl groped by Sagan than the winner of the women's RVV. I doubt many were even aware that there is a women's race.


----------



## Spinney (15 Apr 2013)

There appear to be three strands to this debate:
1) are the podium girls themselves exploited - the consensus appears to be 'no'
2) the effect that podium girls have on women's cycling - no conclusion as yet
3) the effect that podium girls (and other uses of women as eye candy) have on women at large.

For 3), for any of you who have not read through the whole thread, Ebonywillow's post many pages back is worth repeating here:


EbonyWillow said:


> I get where you are coming from Spinney. Having suffered in the past with low self esteem it has taken me a long time to accept I will never look like the stereotype podium girl and finally be happy in my own skin. Images like this used to really rankle me, now however I am indifferent personally but do worry about the effect images like those have on young girls. I work in a primary school and to hear girls as young as 7 worry about whether they are pretty, thin and even trying to act 'sexy' is gut wrenching. I try very hard to encourage an attitude of healthiness over beauty but when you are up against the images we see everywhere and the comments that are made about them, you have to wonder if you're banging your head on a brick wall!!!


----------



## srw (15 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> OK, so that's something I didn't know.
> So why isn't there the money in Women's cycling?


I am now struggling to find the article where I read about the fact that many of the young women who present prizes are themselves cyclists.

There isn't money in women's cycling because professional cycling is stuck in the 1950s - as the use of dolly birds to present prizes proves.


----------



## thom (15 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> I am now struggling to find the article where I read about the fact that many of the young women who present prizes are themselves cyclists.
> 
> There isn't money in women's cycling because professional cycling is stuck in the 1950s - as the use of dolly birds to present prizes proves.


Maja Leye works for the RVV organisation itself, which may be part of the reason Sagan didn't get smacked.



Spinney said:


> 2) the effect that podium girls have on women's cycling - no conclusion as yet


Matt Seaton references this idea amongst others in his blog on the Sagan RVV affair.



Delftse Post said:


> Put it this way. I suspect more people will know the name of the podium girl groped by Sagan than the winner of the women's RVV.


Indeed - Marianne Vos took what surprisingly was her first RVV title.


----------



## rich p (15 Apr 2013)

There is no money in womens' cycling because the promoters and advertisers make the assumption that not enough people will watch it to make it viable.
They are right to an extent. There have been many threads in the Pro Race section about women's cycling in general and particular races which very, very few people post on. A large number of those posting on the podium girl thread have little or no interest in it if you use that as an arbitrary judgment.
How many of you can name the women's world road race champion for the last 3 years? Where is Emma Trott plying her trade nowadays? Is Emma Pooley still on the circuit? Does Marianne Vos ride any other disciplines other than track and road?
It's not a criticism, by the way, but shows how little interest even cyclists pay to women's cycling. Some is due to the lack of coverage in the wider media but the information is out there if you really care.


----------



## EltonFrog (15 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> You mean this Victoria Pendleton?
> View attachment 21998




I'd lend her one.


What? I'm quarter Jew, what can I say!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> They are right to an extent. There have been many threads in the Pro Race section about women's cycling in general and particular races which very, very few people post on. A large number of those posting on the podium girl thread have little or no interest in it if you use that as an arbitrary judgment.


 
I have tried several times to get discussion going both on women's racing and on the reasons why it isn't taken seriously by the UCI and many fans. There's no intrinsic reason why this should be so - for example, women's tennis is more popular than men's and in some parts of the world, women's football is as or more popular than the men's version. And I don't believe that women's cycling has to be less popular - when women's racing is given coverage as in the Olympic road race, for example, just as many people watched it, and saw some top quality racing that in this case, outstripped the men's race for excitement at least. Given this kind of example, it comes down to commitment and invesment from the UCI to make women's cycling visible, to support it and make it seem like they care. And symbolic moves, like getting rid of podium girls, would be one small step in saying that they are committed to equity in cycling and taking women seriously as athletes.


----------



## User482 (15 Apr 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I have tried several times to get discussion going both on women's racing and on the reasons why it isn't taken seriously by the UCI and many fans. There's no intrinsic reason why this should be so - for example, women's tennis is more popular than men's and in some parts of the world, women's football is as or more popular than the men's version. And I don't believe that women's cycling has to be less popular - when women's racing is given coverage as in the Olympic road race, for example, just as many people watched it, and saw some top quality racing that in this case, outstripped the men's race for excitement at least. Given this kind of example, it comes down to commitment and invesment from the UCI to make women's cycling visible, to support it and make it seem like they care. And symbolic moves, like getting rid of podium girls, would be one small step in saying that they are committed to equity in cycling and taking women seriously as athletes.


 

In the UK at least, the top women track cyclists are household names, so as you say, there's no intrinsic reason why the same shouldn't also be true on the road. Were podium girls ever used in presentations for the track?


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Apr 2013)

User482 said:


> In the UK at least, the top women track cyclists are household names, so as you say, there's no intrinsic reason why the same shouldn't also be true on the road.* Were podium girls ever used in presentations for the track?*


 
Yes.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Apr 2013)

Someone mentioned motor sport earlier, which in general has a far worse attitude to women than cycling, but I am wondering how many of those who are so in favour of podium girls here would agree with Stirling Moss about women lacking 'the mental skills' to compete in motor racing... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22083547


----------



## User169 (15 Apr 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Yes.


 
...and still are at 6 day meets.


----------



## theclaud (15 Apr 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> ...and still are at 6 day meets.


I didn't know that. I didn't know Burberry was an Amazingstoker either!


----------



## addictfreak (15 Apr 2013)

User said:


> to be fair to the UCI, they do have a YouTube channel, which they plan to show more women's cycling, it's a start..
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/user/ucichannel
> 
> ...




Thanks for that link, didn't know that channel existed. I usually watch cycling via a Eurosport app on the iPad, but there seems to be very little in the way of women's cycling.


----------



## oldroadman (15 Apr 2013)

User482 said:


> In the UK at least, the top women track cyclists are household names, so as you say, there's no intrinsic reason why the same shouldn't also be true on the road. Were podium girls ever used in presentations for the track?


 
Not at UK track meetings I have been at. Various people carry medals/jerseys on trays or cushions, and others then present them. But no "PGs" actually on the podium. Which is OK. That way it's just the riders up there, which is right. Check pictures of track championships and see.
Anyway, the question was arePGs an anachronism, opinions have been stated, and some have sought to divert discussion into gender politics, which is only to be expected, I guess.
The next thread might be about the excellent race I witnessed last weeked, with attacks, breaks, long chases, more breaks, a winning break, good speed in strong winds, gutsy efforts, and a tough finish won by a very promising young rider. Altogether what the sport should be about. Ah, forgot to mention, it was a womens road race on a lumpy and exposed course.


----------



## thom (15 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Anyway, the question was arePGs an anachronism, opinions have been stated, and some have sought to divert discussion into gender politics, which is only to be expected, I guess.


My gob has been smacked. How is it possible to pretend to have a sensible discussion about Podium Girls without reference to gender politics ?

Convince me that you're not behaving like an Ostrich ?


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Not at UK track meetings I have been at. Various people carry medals/jerseys on trays or cushions, and others then present them. But no "PGs" actually on the podium. Which is OK. That way it's just the riders up there, which is right. Check pictures of track championships and see.
> Anyway, the question was arePGs an anachronism, opinions have been stated, and some have sought to divert discussion into gender politics, which is only to be expected, I guess.
> The next thread might be about the excellent race I witnessed last weeked, with attacks, breaks, long chases, more breaks, a winning break, good speed in strong winds, gutsy efforts, and a tough finish won by a very promising young rider. Altogether what the sport should be about. Ah, forgot to mention, it was a womens road race on a lumpy and exposed course.


 
There were podium girls in the form of girls who carried the medals onto the podium when I was at the Track World Cup in 2011 (I was there collecting riders from their team areas and shepherding them to the podium). They didn't have their bits hanging out and having to kiss the riders though.


----------



## User482 (16 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Not at UK track meetings I have been at. Various people carry medals/jerseys on trays or cushions, and others then present them. But no "PGs" actually on the podium. Which is OK. That way it's just the riders up there, which is right. Check pictures of track championships and see.
> Anyway, the question was arePGs an anachronism, opinions have been stated, and some have sought to divert discussion into gender politics, which is only to be expected, I guess.
> The next thread might be about the excellent race I witnessed last weeked, with attacks, breaks, long chases, more breaks, a winning break, good speed in strong winds, gutsy efforts, and a tough finish won by a very promising young rider. Altogether what the sport should be about. Ah, forgot to mention, it was a womens road race on a lumpy and exposed course.


 
Thanks. I'm a casual follower of professional cycling so wasn't sure, but I certainly couldn't ever recall seeing podium girls at a track event.

I'm not at all sure why you think a discussion about "gender politics" is a diversion -surely it's the heart of the matter?


----------



## User169 (16 Apr 2013)

Picture from 6 day racing in Rotterdam Jan 2013. Podium girls (or flower girls as they call them here) for the women racers.


----------



## Radchenister (16 Apr 2013)

I wonder if the one on the far right would lend me her dress?


----------



## Spinney (16 Apr 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Picture from 6 day racing in Rotterdam Jan 2013. Podium girls (or flower girls as they call them here) for the women racers.


So the podium girls are there for the male _viewers_, not the competitors...


----------



## thom (16 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> So the podium girls are there for the male _viewers_, not the competitors...


They're there as if the average viewer needs an apology as the reality of the actual competitors perversely represents something unpalatable.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Apr 2013)

Phwoar! Thigh candy...!

http://www.youtube.com/user/ucichannel/featured


----------



## thom (16 Apr 2013)

User482 said:


> I'm not at all sure why you think a discussion about "gender politics" is a diversion -surely it's the heart of the matter?


Not sure we'll ever get an explanation to that ...


----------



## Fab Foodie (16 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> So the podium girls are there for the male _viewers_, not the competitors...


 .... and the sponsors ....


----------



## resal (19 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> Just throwing this into the mix, a survey was don a couple of years ago on the exploitation of sex workers in the UK, and surprisingly, the majority working in the industry didn't consider themselves to be exploited. Now the reality is that we run the risk of projecting our own moral code onto those who chose this lifestyle, and that is as bad as any other form of meddling done in the name of religion or anything else....
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279


Now we wouldn't want to go projecting our own moral code on these poor girls when it is so obviously the career of choice for them- read on -

*The brothel worker: 'I regret not working in the sex trade as soon as I got here'*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/15/brothel-regret-not-working-sex-trade
She told me it was the best decision she had made during her time in Britain: her income had gone through the roof and the money she had been able to send home was making a real difference to her family. "In a good week, I can earn £1,500 to £2,000," she told me.

There we go, your point proved. They do want to do it and who am I to suggest that we should try and impose a different level of behaviour on them when they are so keen to take the step up the career and prosperity ladder.

Prostitute, topless lap dancer, podium girl. All of these are about keeping the the status quo as the status quo. Ok we move from the entirely unacceptable to our debating point, but don't put a road block on the argument by saying it cannot be bad because the girls that do it, want to do it. Of course they do. because society gives them such a sloped playing field. And it is about removing those stereotypes that encourage girls to see themselves only as adornment to male activity, at one level that extrapolates all the way down to a young girl thinking that she needs to do due service as a hooker whilst she still has the looks, otherwise she will miss out on the biggest career break she has.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (23 Apr 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> You mean this Victoria Pendleton?
> View attachment 21998


 
Didn't see this before FF...and no it doesn't offend me, she's a fine looking woman but it doesn't alter what I said.

What would this picture mean without what she'd achieved as a cyclist? Answer: not a lot. Whilst men would all agree that she was a good looking woman, any deeper respect would be missing would it not? She just becomes another object but the difference is that everyone knows she's Victoria Pendleton - a female cyclist who has achieved what most of us aren't capable of. I wonder whether this would be her choice of career without the backdrop that we all know about?


----------



## Radchenister (23 Apr 2013)

Monsieur Remings said:


> Didn't see this before FF...and no it doesn't offend me, she's a fine looking woman but it doesn't alter what I said.
> 
> What would this picture mean without what she'd achieved as a cyclist? Answer: not a lot. Whilst men would all agree that she was a good looking woman, any deeper respect would be missing would it not? She just becomes another object but the difference is that everyone knows she's Victoria Pendleton - a female cyclist who has achieved what most of us aren't capable of. I wonder whether this would be her choice of career without the backdrop that we all know about?


 
Waffle, what's your point?


----------



## Monsieur Remings (23 Apr 2013)

If you don't understand what I've written then try again...

Whilst I disagree with FF I respect his point of view, so I'm giving my own back if that's alright with you?


----------



## Radchenister (23 Apr 2013)

Must be my fault not understanding you then - not a very empathetic bunch your crew  ?


----------



## Monsieur Remings (23 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Must be my fault not understanding you then - not a very empathetic bunch your crew  ?


 
Who are 'my crew'?

Don't tell me, everyone who disagrees with your stance on this issue...? 

Whereabouts in this fine part of the world are you (in Avon)?


----------



## Radchenister (23 Apr 2013)

...and before you query me further, perhaps I might be playing devil's advocate - all I see are entrenched views here, why are you assuming 'everyone' would perceive the portrayal as objectification, many of my friends male or female probably wouldn't recognise who it was or give two hoots for an FHM style lads shot - are we back again to ironic pastiches or are people reading too much into things; me thinks the males on here 'doth protest too much'!?

GL12  .


----------



## Monsieur Remings (23 Apr 2013)

Fair enough, but points of view are points of view. For what it's worth, I, personally, doubt Victoria Pendleton would view herself in that photo in the same way had she not been a famous cyclist, that's all...whether your mates know her or not is a bit irrelevant to be honest. Insofar as objectification here, it is different for the reasons I point out above - namely that she's Victoria Pendleton! In that sense FF was right to challenge my use of her name in the context of this discussion and I've replied that I don't think it alters my stance for the reasons given...if she wants to shoot photos like that then that's up to her, it detracts nothing from the argument I gave regarding podium girls undermining women in the sport of cycling.

Maybe I'm wrong? But there are entrenched views on both sides from what I gather and if I remember you accused me of being 'on the pull' did you not? I still don't know who?

Remember that on a forum you are you, and whilst you may agree and disagree with what others write, you are ultimately the one who has to stand up and be counted, alone and generalisations about what groups of people think are just that - generalisations and do nothing but sanitise and undermine your own argument.


----------



## Radchenister (23 Apr 2013)

I did, irony is always a blunt missile ... but I also believe you hadn't read the thread all the way through at your point of entry the other evening? For what it's worth, I think this thread has become a polarised ping pong match before that point in time, like many threads do on all internet forums and 'who is who' is largely irrelevant now, as we're into angels on pin heads; I believe that the future is bright for female cycling and energy is better spent focussing on improving things in that area than griping over podium 'people'.

Edit: in fact, I think joining the two issues is not even worth the bluster.

It has been fun though IMO, I would hope people view it that way - not a question that.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (23 Apr 2013)

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree then. You've obviously thought through what you think but I disagree and I think it does undermine women's cycling and for what it is, I don't think it's worth it...it's crap in other words, especially when riders are more pleased to see their own wives, girlfriends, children etc.

But I agree that the future is bright for women's cycling and long may that last. Old perceptions and prejudices still have an effect though and this is part, is it not, of the point regarding podium 'girls'?

Have a good season, Rad.


----------



## Radchenister (23 Apr 2013)

If you have read the thread you woulld know that my position from the start has been to remove them, so there is nothing to disagree about.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (23 Apr 2013)

Then why start up regarding my 'waffle'?


----------



## Radchenister (23 Apr 2013)

Because it's perpetuating polarised views to focus on the perception of a problem ... IMO, old fashioned and time we moved on, it doesn't equate to a modern balanced viewpoint.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (23 Apr 2013)

Surely the argument itself is an example of balance, is it not? 

I don't disregard what I disagree with, but I do try and give reasons for my disagreement, which leads inexorably to a position on a subject, but this is not the same as entrenchment and I feel as if you yourself Rad, have seen and approached this debate, all along, in terms of one side against the other. 

My opening post this evening addressed FF's post regarding Victoria Pendleton and whilst I had points to make we are surely - FF and myself - a long way from 'polarisation' as such a position would itself invalidate and undermine any point in debate....and it is debate that is going on here.


----------



## Radchenister (23 Apr 2013)

Oh I don't know, one minute I'm too general, the next I'm 'us and them'  - I'll become a recluse I think, best hide away for fear of offending the easilly offended - have a good season yourself  .


----------



## thom (24 Apr 2013)

Radchenister said:


> ...and before you query me further, perhaps I might be playing devil's advocate - all I see are entrenched views here,


Entrenched ? If you want to play devil's argument, point out the entrenched pro-argument please, not the entrenched ambivalent position.
In the absence one, those who are entrenched in their opinion that PGs give a sexist representation of the role of women and should be done away with, shall rest unperturbed whist enjoying their next glass of preferred tipple.


----------



## Moderators (24 Apr 2013)

It's run it's course, so we'll close this thread now and invite you all to try some of the many other wonderful threads we have to offer. ​ 
Thank you​


----------

