Podium Girls

[Monsieur Remings]

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]

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

 

[Monsieur Remings]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Then why start up regarding my 'waffle'?

 

[Radchenister]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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​