More podium shenanigans

Sundy

Lets hear the outrage over this one:)



Could this start a podium trend?

Lumen

Good to see a bit of tall sockage on the women.

ednwireland

i'm outraged, and disgusted

actually does she seem to have very big ... hands

Ole Rodrigo

Phwoarr. Nice bib length.

Konkers

ednwireland wrote: »

i'm outraged, and disgusted

actually does she seem to have very big ... hands

Yeah, Looks doctored.....badly....... Or is that an obvious given?.?.??.:o

cunavalos

Its genuine as the photo from another angle shows

Sundy

Konkers wrote: »

Yeah, Looks doctored.....badly....... Or is that an obvious given?.?.??.:o

Haha it does but no it genuine but your didnt see it in the news because it a woman doing it i guess

Harrybelafonte

Lame

godtabh

i'm both turned on and enraged at the spectacle.

mirv

She certainly looks a bit 'rapey'.

I hope Jane Aubrey of cyclingnews is eating her words. Unless she writes an equivalently flamey piece of gutter journalism over Loren Rowney, I call sexism.

https://twitter.com/janeaubrey/status/318745539372003328

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-bottom-line-on-sagans-flanders-podium-pinch

petethedrummer

I had a problem with Sagan and not with this. That may be a double standard to some but I stand by it.

If my brother and sister were in a pub and a man pinched my sister in the arse uninvited and a woman pinched my brother in the arse uninvited, I know who I'd be over to first.

on_the_nickel

petethedrummer wrote: »

I had a problem with Sagan and not with this. That may be a double standard to some but I stand by it.

If my brother and sister were in a pub and a man pinched my sister in the arse uninvited and a woman pinched my brother in the arse uninvited, I know who I'd be over to first.

The woman, with your arse out?

petethedrummer

on_the_nickel wrote: »

The woman, with your arse out?

correct......after I punch the guy.

And we can joke about that because it does not mean the same for men and women to experience uninvited physical contact. We are equals we are just not the same.

mirv

How about let your sister/friend slap or pinch the guy back instead?

Needing to 'step in' to defend a woman only serves to objectify women further as helpless unequals who need rescuing.

Similarly, I'm sure plenty of ladies out on hen nights have gone around pinching bums without much consequence. Sexism works both ways.

petethedrummer wrote: »

correct......after I punch the guy.

And we can joke about that because it does not mean the same for men and women to experience uninvited physical contact. We are equals we are just not the same.

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

And we can joke about that because it does not mean the same for men and women to experience uninvited physical contact. We are equals we are just not the same.

That rather depends on the individuals involved.

petethedrummer

mirv wrote: »

How about let your sister/friend slap or pinch the guy back instead?

Needing to 'step in' to defend a woman only serves to objectify women further as helpless unequals.

In general men are larger, more muscular and have more testosterone and therefore an advantage in a physical exchange. They also have to suffer greater consequences if an approach gets out of hand. That is why I would step in for my sister. It does not objectify women to take this stance. And I would hazard a guess that most girls would step in to defend their sister over their brother. But I suppose you equate that to more female sexism.

mirv wrote: »

Similarly, I'm sure plenty of ladies out on hen nights have gone around pinching bums without much consequence. Sexism works both ways.

Sure it happens but its not a problem as it does not mean the same to men as it does to women to experience it.


EDIT: Granted, I will accept that women probably shouldn't do it as it may lead men to think it's Ok to return the action.

Dermot Illogical

Sundy wrote: »

Does the winner look a bit like Sagan from that angle?
It's all getting very complicated.

mirv

I still think Jane Aubrey ought to stuff it though. Unless she writes an equivalently vitriolic article on Loren, she's just a hypocrite of the highest order.

TheBlaaMan

https://twitter.com/petosagan/status/321649506900910081

Wishbone Ash

We need to put Le Blaireau in charge more often to cut out this messing!

Konkers

Sundy wrote: »

Haha it does but no it genuine but your didnt see it in the news because it a woman doing it i guess

Oops my bad. She does look like she is enjoying the joke. Did u intend to start a debate like this........?

godtabh

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

We need to put Le Blaireau in charge more often to cut out this messing!

What's going on there?

Wishbone Ash

An imposter took to the podium but Hinault quickly dealt with him!

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

An imposter took to the podium but Hinault quickly dealt with him!

......and not for the first time!

Diarmuid

Hinault has plenty of practice.

Konkers

Jaysus he's a bulky lad for a multiple Tdf winner. You wouldn't see guns like that on the podium nowadays.

Wishbone Ash

Yes - dealing with the shipyard workers protest in Paris Nice in '84.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Yes - dealing with the shipyard workers protest in Paris Nice in '84.

Russman

mirv wrote: »

Needing to 'step in' to defend a woman only serves to objectify women further as helpless unequals who need rescuing.

No it doesn't

letape

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

......and not for the first time!

I have to say I find the pictures of Hinault dealing with the podium impostors hilarious! He is one man you wouldn't mess with!!

Darkglasses

I think most of you will probably disagree with me, but I think this is a load of absolute bull.

Ole Rodrigo

Diarmuid wrote: »

That punch looks a bit girly, if you'll excuse my sexism.

Konkers

Darkglasses wrote: »

I think most of you will probably disagree with me, but I think this is a load of absolute bull.

Yeah agreed.

I have always admired the restraint shown by the winning cyclist on the podium. The lovely ladies and they don't try anything. I've always put it down to the fact that they are absolutely wrecked, just managing to stand and smile.

From personal experience can u imagine if that was a amateur rugby team getting the kisses? the shenanigans would end the tradition pretty quickly.

ashleey

Don't you spend 80 mins grabbing each other's backsides in rugby anyway?

doozerie

Sure yer man was asking for it, dressed like he was and being dumb enough to take on the demeaning role of podium boy, good enough for him. I find it hilarious and I laugh in his face, and I know that everyone else feels the very same way. Etc.

...oooh, I feel all manly all of a sudden.

doozerie

mirv wrote: »

She certainly looks a bit 'rapey'.

I hope Jane Aubrey of cyclingnews is eating her words. Unless she writes an equivalently flamey piece of gutter journalism over Loren Rowney, I call sexism.

https://twitter.com/janeaubrey/status/318745539372003328

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-bottom-line-on-sagans-flanders-podium-pinch

Having just looked at those links I can't say that I see any gutter journalism, just some well reasoned points for the most part.

Konkers

ashleey wrote: »

Don't you spend 80 mins grabbing each other's backsides in rugby anyway?

Yeah "each other's" and that has to be supervised by the much respected mammy like official. :pac:

BofaDeezNuhtz

mirv wrote: »

Similarly, I'm sure plenty of ladies out on hen nights have gone around pinching bums without much consequence. Sexism works both ways.

As a youngfella I worked as a barman in one of the main nightclubs here in the
city centre and got practically raped every weekend by hen parties just tryna
walk thru them out on a crowded floor. Hands everwhere pulling me asunder.
Now no male teenager is gonna moan about 15-20 women all having a grope but
sometimes it went way past that and was just pure madness what they got up to!
Sure I soldiered on regardless as ye do

ashleey wrote: »

Don't you spend 80 mins grabbing each other's backsides in rugby anyway?

Oh Matrón

mirv

Because it was a piece of over-reaching sensationalistic misandry that would look better in the Daily Mail than on a cycling website. The whole issue has been overblown entirely. He's probably been fined thousands, has had to grovel on twitter and youtube. No ones died over a single second worth of bum pinching.

doozerie wrote: »

Having just looked at those links I can't say that I see any gutter journalism, just some well reasoned points for the most part.

doozerie

mirv wrote: »

Because it was a piece of over-reaching sensationalistic misandry that would look better in the Daily Mail than on a cycling website. The whole issue has been overblown entirely. He's probably been fined thousands, has had to grovel on twitter and youtube. No ones died over a single second worth of bum pinching.

I completely disagree, on all points. Well except maybe on the "no ones died" bit.

Dermot Illogical

mirv wrote: »

Because it was a piece of over-reaching sensationalistic misandry that would look better in the Daily Mail than on a cycling website

I agree. A very poorly-written piece indeed. Tripe, complete and utter tripe.
There are only a couple of facts in it, and a whole bunch of straw man argument.

Captain Havoc

Suzuki_TL1000R wrote: »

As a youngfella I worked as a barman in one of the main nightclubs here in the
city centre and got practically raped every weekend by hen parties just tryna
walk thru them out on a crowded floor. Hands everwhere pulling me asunder.
Now no male teenager is gonna moan about 15-20 women all having a grope but
sometimes it went way past that and was just pure madness what they got up to!
Sure I soldiered on regardless as ye do




Oh Matrón

Thinly veiled, I'm a hansome mofo post

doozerie

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I agree. A very poorly-written piece indeed. Tripe, complete and utter tripe.
There are only a couple of facts in it, and a whole bunch of straw man argument.

I'm not sure what straw man arguments you are referring to. When I read the article the author seems to be making a number of points:

* Sagan showed disrespect to the woman he groped. I can't see how anyone could dispute that.

* She broadens that out to say its an example of "disrespect being shown against women in cycling". Personally I don't take issue with that, as I see the whole podium girl aspect of celebrations as a bit bizarre and comments on the Sagan thread on here show that at least some of the posters do indeed have what I can only construe as a misogynistic attitude towards them. Perhaps the author is making a broader point again here, but I read it in the context of podium celebrations.

* She points out that Marianne Vos's phenomenal success in the womens' Flanders race ends up being under-appreciated as the media focus on Sagan's antics instead. She's right, Sagan has garnered the spotlight for himself - detracting from Cancellara's success too in doing so, incidentally, which perhaps was at least one very childish and indignant motivation for his actions in the first place.

* She challenges those that dismiss Sagan's actions as "a laugh", and rightly so 'cos sexual harassment is not a joking matter no matter who it is targeted at.

* She says that Sagan was idiotic and immature and mentions other examples of where he "seems to have an odd perception of what is appropriate", examples that I think are very valid.

* She states that some people seem to take the view that podium girls must expect to be objectified and are essentially "asking for it". Look back at the Sagan thread on here and I think you'll find some people arguing exactly that. That to me is one of the more shocking and damning aspects of the whole incident, it has served to highlight some very disturbing views held by some people.

* She laments the fact that the Women's Tour of Flanders was not televised. I think that's a shame too. I personally don't see it not being televised in itself as sexist or misogynistic though, at the very least there is money involved in such a decision which muddies the waters a lot, but I do think that women's sport all too often gets pushed to the sidelines and my concern would be that this is at least partly because it is somehow seen as "less than" the corresponding men's event and not just based on its sporting merits. There is a much bigger debate to be had there though, one which goes way beyond the podium incidents and this thread.

* She suggests that the UCI should condemn Sagan's behaviour, and I strongly agree (maybe they have, but I've not seen anything about it). The UCI loves rules, right down to such fussy things as whether your TT saddle is level "enough", the least they could do is take a stance on what is unacceptable for cyclists to do on the podium.

I don't see the tripe either. And I can usually recognise tripe from quite a distance, I grew up on a diet of it (both literally and figuratively).

Dermot Illogical

Sagan did show disrespect, and has acknowledged as much. His acknowledgement took the wind out of the writer's sails somewhat.

What I take issue with is that she then bases the rest of the article on "some people seem to think" and it's overshadowed Marianne Vos.

The former is a straw man argument, with absolutely nothing to substantiate it, and the latter was never under any circumstances going to be a headline grabber.

Of course you can always find some muppet who will "seem to think....(insert whatever unsavourary attitude here), but the writer of that article has made a huge leap to fill out a page or two. it's lazy journalism, starting with a forgone conclusion, and not an iota of substance. There may be some, but she didn't include it.

Tripe.

Icyseanfitz

he has said sorry numerous times now, today on a podium with flowers (that sly b****rd ), i think we can put it down to a moment of madness tbh, and i really dont see how a woman doing it to a man is any different imo

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

as I see the whole podium girl aspect of celebrations as a bit bizarre and comments on the Sagan thread on here show that at least some of the posters do indeed have what I can only construe as a misogynistic attitude towards them

If you're equating objectification with misogyny (which I think is a stretch, to say the least) then it's the organisers who should be the primary target of your ire - they're the ones responsible for the "podium girl" concept.

Personally speaking, I think a "podium girl" is by definition an object, whereas the woman who is performing as the podium girl is not.

Conflating the act with the actor is a basic mistake of the sort of knuckledragging grunt who shouts "oi, Ricky you slaaaaag" at Sid Owen* without a trace of irony.

(* all of my popular culture references are anchored in the 1980s)

doozerie

@Dermot Illogical, Personally I don't think that Sagan's acknowledgement took the wind out of anyone's sails. It's quite easy to utter an apology, whether you actually mean it or not, and issuing the apology to the public (I've only seen the video apology of this that someone posted here recently) is something that I found very odd. The apology should have been directly to the woman he groped, and the more uncomfortable the apology felt for him (such as having to issue the apology to her face and preferably in front of cameras) perhaps the more likely he'd have gained some inkling of an understanding of what he subjected her to (it wouldn't by any means be the same, but it might leave more of a memory of the incident, which might influence his behaviour in the future). The onus should be on him to convince her of the sincerity of his apology, and she is perfectly entitled to refuse to accept the apology too - she tweeted that she accepted the apology, but the gist of online comments I've read is that Sagan wiped the slate clean simply by saying "sorry" remotely, suggesting that her acceptance of it, or not, counted for nothing.

As to the "some people seem to think" aspect of her article, on the various websites where I've read anything to do with the incident I've seen numerous comments from people applauding what Sagan did on the podium. Some of those were here on Boards.ie too. Many others happily dismissed it as nothing to be concerned about, as if it were somehow acceptable. I think the author has very good grounds to base an article around "some people seem to think", at least as much as those who counter argue that "sure no-one really cares, therefore it's not a big deal".

And as for it not overshadowing Marianne Vos's victory, well that's obviously gotta be entirely a matter of opinion. I agree that her victory was never going to be the same kind of headline grabber as Cancellara's victory, but that in itself supports the view that there is a significant disparity in the way that men's cycling is seen versus women's cycling, and in my view one hurdle to that ever changing is the relative lack of reporting of the significant women's events. If Sagan hadn't done what he did then at least some more media space could have been allocated to Vos's achievement rather than the actions of a petulant child (and that description of him is being more fair to Sagan than he deserves at it suggests his motives were not entirely malevolent).

doozerie

Lumen wrote: »

If you're equating objectification with misogyny (which I think is a stretch, to say the least) then it's the organisers who should be the primary target of your ire - they're the ones responsible for the "podium girl" concept.

Personally speaking, I think a "podium girl" is by definition an object, whereas the woman who is performing as the podium girl is not.

Conflating the act with the actor is a basic mistake of the sort of knuckledragging grunt who shouts "oi, Ricky you slaaaaag" at Sid Owen* without a trace of irony.

(* all of my popular culture references are anchored in the 1980s)

True, objectification is not the same as misogyny, but they do sometimes go hand in hand and in some of the worst posts that I was referring to the two seemed to be no more than different sides of the same coin.

I do agree that the organisers are ultimately responsible for the podium girl aspect of the celebrations, but they presumably are fans of them because they believe it attracts an audience, and based on online comments they would appear to be right. So I would think that the organisers motives are mainly (though perhaps not exclusively) financial, whereas the motives of supporters of podium girl celebrations amongst spectators are more dubious and are the ones that I think should be challenged first.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

True, objectification is not the same as misogyny, but they do sometimes go hand in hand and in some of the worst posts that I was referring to the two seemed to be no more than different sides of the same coin.

Correlation/causation.

If a woman voluntarily assumes the role of standing around being gawked at (which is basically what models are for, whether they're podium girls, catwalkers or whatever) then we (men, women, whatever) are perfectly entitled to gawk at them (and pass comment, if we wish) without being accused of mysogyny.

Such accusations are no more worthy than the man-hating-lesbian taunts aimed at Greenham Common protesters in the 1980s.

BofaDeezNuhtz

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Thinly veiled, I'm a hansome mofo post

Dammit I was tryna make it more than obvious tbh.....big micky too

doozerie

Lumen wrote: »

Correlation/causation.

If a woman voluntarily assumes the role of standing around being gawked at (which is basically what models are for, whether they're podium girls, catwalkers or whatever) then we (men, women, whatever) are perfectly entitled to gawk at them (and pass comment, if we wish) without being accused of mysogyny.

Such accusations are no more worthy than the man-hating-lesbian taunts aimed at Greenham Common protesters in the 1980s.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that objectification leads (inevitably or otherwise) to misogyny. The misogynistic attitude towards podium girls that I referred to as being evident in some posts is not, in my opinion, the result of someone taking the ogling of the women to another level again, I think the extremely low view of the women is there in some people to start with but they try to defend and justify their attitude with the argument that all that they are doing is somehow treating the women in the (objectifying) manner in which the women themselves invite.

As an example, someone that argues that it is acceptable to grope podium girls simply because they put themselves on display on the podium, is (despite what they may claim) not arguing that people should be entitled to gawk at them, they are arguing that those women have voluntarily surrendered their rights to not be sexually harassed or predated upon, which as a very different thing altogether.

So when I say that I'd happily see podium girl celebrations done away with, it's not because I have an issue with people staring at the women and thinking how good they look (I'm as likely as anyone else to look at an attractive women and think "Wow!"), it's because of my concern that those with very dubious views on women see it as some kind of vindication of their thinking that women exist for nothing other than to serve men, willingly or otherwise. By Sagan openly groping of one of the women he fed such people further "proof" that such predatory behaviour towards women is okay. The behaviour of Loren Rowney in the picture at the start of this thread is equally stupid because depending on your point of view it either makes light of a serious incident, or further blurs the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour towards another person.