Colombian women's cycling team jerseys !

slap/dash · 16-09-2014 1:53pm

alastair wrote: »

Eh? So your saying that an accidental misreading of a design, still holds that design to be guilty of all of the above? How does that work then?

Sorry I'm not about to teach you a semester of social theory. There's a big ol internet out there that is a great resource for those that want to know. Google systemic racism/sexism as a start

fat bloke · 16-09-2014 1:55pm

slap/dash wrote: »

Google systemic racism/sexism as a start

Cheers man.

That's my weekend sorted.

MPFG · 16-09-2014 1:56pm

When I saw it I actually thought they were naked ...still do ...looks like optical illusions work on me

My first thought was ...on no women's sexuality being exploited again ....
As a woman that is pretty much how the land lies in the world ...If you are a woman its what you look like (in a kit) that seems the most important thing rather than your sporting prowess

But then i read that one of the team designed the kit and all the women seem happy to wear it.... It is there choice and I support every woman to make that choice

As a marketing ploy it seems to have worked....whcih is the saddest thing of all about this story

Wouldn't wear it myself though

Ole Rodrigo · 16-09-2014 1:57pm

Is it just me or is the internet completely fcuking bonkers.

newport2 · 16-09-2014 1:57pm

slap/dash wrote: »

Intentionality has nothing to do with casual sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism etc etc.

Surely it does though? A key element being context. Someone making an outright racist slur and someone interpreting something to mean something it wasn't intended to are two very different things. It's very easy to take an innocent remark and see something that wasn't intended or just isn't there from it, descending into a situation where people are just afraid to say anything for fear of being labelled with an "ism". Rotherham being a recent prime example.

alastair · 16-09-2014 1:58pm

slap/dash wrote: »

Sorry I'm not about to teach you a semester of social theory. There's a big ol internet out there that is a great resource for those that want to know. Google systemic racism/sexism as a start

You took the Google school of social theoretics then? Well, it hasn't produced particularly compelling arguments. There's no 'systemic' sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/classism, or any other red herrings at play here.

LeoD · 16-09-2014 2:00pm

rubberdiddies wrote: »

when i was scanning through the newspaper the other day, i saw this picture. didn't bat an eyelid at it and didn't read the accompanying article.

it was only hours later when it had gone 'viral' that i noticed what people were talking about. i'm still finding it hard to understand what the big deal is. to me it's just cycling gear with different colours, one of which happens to be a little bit skin tone like. the only reason why it has made the headlines and gone viral is because to some people it seems controversial.
it's gone viral, because i can only assume the designers/team/sponsors wanted it to.

its being made an issue of because people want it to be an issue.

Rubber diddies denies sexism in cycling kit row...

pelevin · 16-09-2014 2:01pm

slap/dash wrote: »

Intentionality has nothing to do with casual sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism etc etc. The I was only joking/didn't mean it cuts no ice. This idea of get over it is the mantra of the privilidged.

You've quoted my post and then responded as if to something totally different. I made no mention of "only joking." I said nothing about get over it. I said it was probably an unintentional issue but now that it transpired that people perceived the kit as inappropriate or that in a certain light it looked that way, then it should certainly be changed. Where are you going with reading "a mantra of the privileged" into what I wrote?

And if this was all accidental from design to production to wearing the kit rather than intentional, then noone involved is guilty of sexism in any sense. Now that it has become an issue though, & is perceived as inappropriate, if the team chose to take advantage of the publicity & stick with the kit as is, then one could say it has become exploitative - that the cyclists are being used.

alastair · 16-09-2014 2:02pm

MPFG wrote: »

As a marketing ploy it seems to have worked....whcih is the saddest thing of all about this story

Except that there's nothing to suggest that anyone is trying to market anything here on the back of exploitation. It's an unfortunate misreading of a poorly considered design. It happens all the time.

MPFG · 16-09-2014 2:16pm

alastair wrote: »

Except that there's nothing to suggest that anyone is trying to market anything here on the back of exploitation. It's an unfortunate misreading of a poorly considered design. It happens all the time.

All cycling kits by their nature are marketing tools ...for team , sponsors ,etc

alastair · 16-09-2014 2:24pm

MPFG wrote: »

All cycling kits by their nature are marketing tools ...for team , sponsors ,etc

And? Does that mean they are all employing exploitative strategies (the specific claim you're making)?

MPFG · 16-09-2014 2:44pm

alastair wrote: »

And? Does that mean they are all employing exploitative strategies (the specific claim you're making)?

I said it was my first thought that it could be seen as exploitation and I then go on to elucidate on my second thought

I didn't say anything about 'all employing exploitative strategies'...never even comments on all (marketing or kits or whatever you mean by all) etc

If you don't read my post or chose to intrepret in your own way then there is no point in have this interchange

alastair · 16-09-2014 2:53pm

MPFG wrote: »

I said it was my first thought that it could be seen as exploitation and I then go on to elucidate on my second thought

I didn't say anything about 'all employing exploitative strategies'...never even comments on all (marketing or kits or whatever you mean by all) etc

If you don't read my post or chose to intrepret in your own way then there is no point in have this interchange

Oh please. :rolleyes:

You said:

My first thought was ...on no women's sexuality being exploited again ....

then you said that it would be okay with you if the women involved were okay with it, but then ended your musings with:

As a marketing ploy it seems to have worked....whcih is the saddest thing of all about this story

Now - if that's not an accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy, what is it exactly? How is anyone supposed to interpret it otherwise?

Coming back with the remarkable insight that all sponsored strips are marketing devices is the real leap of mis-interpretation of a post.

MPFG · 16-09-2014 3:18pm

alastair wrote: »

Oh please. :rolleyes:

You said:

then you said that it would be okay with you if the women involved were okay with it, but then ended your musings with:

Now - if that's not an accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy, what is it exactly? How is anyone supposed to interpret it otherwise?

Coming back with the remarkable insight that all sponsored strips are marketing devices is the real leap of mis-interpretation of a post.

I made no of 'accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy' ..I said it was sad....you intrept it as the way you want

All cycling kits are marketing devices ...fact ....

You are delibrately rude & confrontational ...and you can't read plain English is that clear enough for you ..or maybe you will misintrepet that

I have better things to do that read your aggressive posts ....like clean the guttering

alastair · 16-09-2014 3:26pm

MPFG wrote: »

I made no of 'accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy' ..I said it was sad....you intrept it as the way you want

All cycling kits are marketing devices ...fact ....

You are delibrately rude & confrontational ...and you can't read plain English is that clear enough for you ..or maybe you will misintrepet that

I have better things to do that read your aggressive posts ....like clean the guttering

Huff and puff all you like, but I note you haven't addressed my questions. And yes - it's a fact that sponsored strips are marketing devices - but who claimed otherwise? It's you that introduce this undisputed factoid to dissemble from your original claim of exploitation. That's what you meant by it being 'sad'. Let's not pretend otherwise.

fat bloke · 16-09-2014 4:20pm

alastair wrote: »

... sponsored strip

Now THAT I'd pay to see.

Beasty · 16-09-2014 4:26pm

MPFG wrote: »

You are delibrately rude & confrontational ...and you can't read plain English is that clear enough for you ..or maybe you will misintrepet that

I have better things to do that read your aggressive posts ....like clean the guttering

If you have a problem with a post or poster report it and leave the mods to deal with it as they see fit. Do not react in thread.

Noel Tallon · 16-09-2014 5:07pm

My head hurts. Is there a forum for women's beach volleyball?

slap/dash · 16-09-2014 5:56pm

pelevin wrote: »

You've quoted my post and then responded as if to something totally different. I made no mention of "only joking." I said nothing about get over it. I said it was probably an unintentional issue but now that it transpired that people perceived the kit as inappropriate or that in a certain light it looked that way, then it should certainly be changed. Where are you going with reading "a mantra of the privileged" into what I wrote?

And if this was all accidental from design to production to wearing the kit rather than intentional, then noone involved is guilty of sexism in any sense. Now that it has become an issue though, & is perceived as inappropriate, if the team chose to take advantage of the publicity & stick with the kit as is, then one could say it has become exploitative - that the cyclists are being used.

I was making a general point related to the specious intentionality argument. Not to your post in its entirety.

gordongekko · 16-09-2014 6:11pm

fat bloke wrote: »

Cheers man.

Sexist pig :-)

Kinet1c · 16-09-2014 6:38pm

Some pretty poor responses in this thread as to why people didn't think twice about it being an issue. I'd be the first to jump on stuff being too PC but I defo see an issue with the kit.

Women's sport, as a whole, gets less coverage then their male counterparts. 6 nations (rugby) and euro qualifiers (soccer) for women are lucky to get a stream up on rte.ie, nevermind full television coverage... and that's when they're actually doing well.

Same goes for funding. Take the Dublin GAA teams. In 2010, Dublin ladies won the All Ireland with their male counterparts reached the semi final. The lads team got a trip away (with partners) to somewhere sunny (exact location escapes me this time) whereas the ladies got nothing close in terms of expenditure.

So... when something like this picture arises, where the picture gets more coverage then the actual sporting event.. you can see why some of the female (or male) posters here are getting pissed off with it.

alastair · 16-09-2014 7:09pm

Kinet1c wrote: »

Some pretty poor responses in this thread as to why people didn't think twice about it being an issue. I'd be the first to jump on stuff being too PC but I defo see an issue with the kit.

Women's sport, as a whole, gets less coverage then their male counterparts. 6 nations (rugby) and euro qualifiers (soccer) for women are lucky to get a stream up on rte.ie, nevermind full television coverage... and that's when they're actually doing well.

Same goes for funding. Take the Dublin GAA teams. In 2010, Dublin ladies won the All Ireland with their male counterparts reached the semi final. The lads team got a trip away (with partners) to somewhere sunny (exact location escapes me this time) whereas the ladies got nothing close in terms of expenditure.

So... when something like this picture arises, where the picture gets more coverage then the actual sporting event.. you can see why some of the female (or male) posters here are getting pissed off with it.

In all of that, you've managed to avoid stating what your issue is with the kit. Now, let's remind ourselves, the kit has nothing to do with the inequality of funding and coverage of women's sports, or how the interwebs and/or traditional media handle something that accidentally looks like a bit of nudity. There's no such thing as women's GAA teams btw - both camogie and ladies football exists outside the umbrella of the GAA - so little wonder they don't get the same quality of junket from the GAA.

JayRoc · 16-09-2014 7:27pm

A gold stripe on a cycling kit appears flesh-coloured in a photo and people immediately see an international misogynistic agenda at work?

I have to be honest, if this is, as I would've assumed, an unintentional mistake, then comparing it to a woman being whooped at by some moron while she's out on her bike is doing no-one any favours IMO.

Remember people mentioning the word rape in the same breath as the Hunky-Dory's ads? This is the same sort of thing....it opens up all one's arguments to ridicule.

whupdedo · 16-09-2014 7:35pm

Kinet1c wrote: »

Some pretty poor responses in this thread as to why people didn't think twice about it being an issue. I'd be the first to jump on stuff being too PC but I defo see an issue with the kit.

Women's sport, as a whole, gets less coverage then their male counterparts. 6 nations (rugby) and euro qualifiers (soccer) for women are lucky to get a stream up on rte.ie, nevermind full television coverage... and that's when they're actually doing well.

Same goes for funding. Take the Dublin GAA teams. In 2010, Dublin ladies won the All Ireland with their male counterparts reached the semi final. The lads team got a trip away (with partners) to somewhere sunny (exact location escapes me this time) whereas the ladies got nothing close in terms of expenditure.

So... when something like this picture arises, where the picture gets more coverage then the actual sporting event.. you can see why some of the female (or male) posters here are getting pissed off with it.

That's all well and good, but women's sport don't pull in the same sponsors, punters or interest as mens sport, you can complain all you want but if their not pulling in the main interests such as sponsors and ticket sales theirs no point spending money on them,and the reason games like rugby and soccer don't get air time is because it's just not as intensive or interesting as mens games in the eyes of the people who matter ie, the fans

i saw the picture on ylyl6 a few days ago and taught nothing of it, but this thread and some of the posters are gone way beyond pc or even rational discussion, racist sexist and whatever other alarmist words you can think of, still won't make it that, have a bit of realism and less of the histrionics

alastair · 16-09-2014 7:37pm

JayRoc wrote: »

A gold stripe on a cycling kit appears flesh-coloured in a photo and people immediately see an international misogynistic agenda at work?

I have to be honest, if this is, as I would've assumed, an unintentional mistake, then comparing it to a woman being whooped at by some moron while she's out on her bike is doing no-one any favours IMO.

Remember people mentioning the word rape in the same breath as the Hunky-Dory's ads? This is the same sort of thing....it opens up all one's arguments to ridicule.

At least the Hunky Dorys ad bunfight was related to issues of objectification and skewed sexual representations - even if some people went a bit overboard on the dangers and messages implied. Nothing of the same going on here, that anyone can highlight. It's just a poorly designed kit.

slap/dash · 16-09-2014 8:21pm

whupdedo wrote: »

That's all well and good, but women's sport don't pull in the same sponsors, punters or interest as mens sport, you can complain all you want but if their not pulling in the main interests such as sponsors and ticket sales theirs no point spending money on them,and the reason games like rugby and soccer don't get air time is because it's just not as intensive or interesting as mens games in the eyes of the people who matter ie, the fans

i saw the picture on ylyl6 a few days ago and taught nothing of it, but this thread and some of the posters are gone way beyond pc or even rational discussion, racist sexist and whatever other alarmist words you can think of, still won't make it that, have a bit of realism and less of the histrionics

I'll just point out here the etymology of "histrionics": a word mediated through profoundly misogynistic Freudian theory.

Myself and others were arguing the issue but it's quite telling that when people speak against sexism etcetera they typically get the ad hominem of PC brigade thrown around along with attempts to belittle their rational capicities. This is precisely how systemic, everyday sexism works. I'm not calling you sexist btw. I'm male and as such am always gonna have to check my worst instincts, but that's the whole point: don't take common sense as rote, and try to place yourself in the position of less privileged sectors of society. End transmission.

whupdedo · 16-09-2014 8:44pm

slap/dash wrote: »

I'll just point out here the etymology of "histrionics": a word mediated through profoundly misogynistic Freudian theory.

Myself and others were arguing the issue but it's quite telling that when people speak against sexism etcetera they typically get the ad hominem of PC brigade thrown around along with attempts to belittle their rational capicities. This is precisely how systemic, everyday sexism works. I'm not calling you sexist btw. I'm male and as such am always gonna have to check my worst instincts, but that's the whole point: don't take common sense as rote, and try to place yourself in the position of less privileged sectors of society. End transmission.

PC has a place, but in my opinion, this isn't it, you think that I'm belittling your argument just because I mention the term PC that doesn't hold water, it doesn't make my point any less valid

You might have guilt issues because you were born male, but I on the other hand have no such affliction, what worst instincts are you on about ? I have an idea but I'd like you to clarify

LESS PRIVILEGED IN SOCIETY ? Who are you talking about,? I certainly hope it's not women