Journalism and cycling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That is untrue.

Agree, as per:

https://hr.per.gov.ie/promotion-in-the-civil-service/

Don’t hold back there. Gender politics isn’t BS btw. A bit more education for those that dismiss it wouldn’t go astray.

DonegalBay wrote: »

I think it's more the fact that it seem's to be shoved into just about everything going these days, even when not warranted. One of the issues we frequently hear about is getting women involved in sports and this is especially true for cycling clubs, which struggle to do so. In my experience, putting out a general invitation for new people doesn't seem to work in attracting females so clubs have to target females in specific ways to attract them to join a male dominated environment. To me, this ad is aimed at women which should be seen as a good sign, but because it dared showed a man buying a bicycle for his partner, it is "sexist" or "out of touch".

I gift my sister athletic/cycling stuff, because that is what she enjoys and she might appreciate new gear or stuff(Which of course she does). Does this mean I am sexist or subliminally suggesting she needs to lose weight or get fit? Cmon. Ironically, I did suggest to her before about getting a turbo trainer, but warned her it would be tough and boring at times without the fancy bells and whistles that these type of trainers have. I have never had one, but maybe they are great for motivation etc.

DonegalBay wrote: »

This from the article quoted

"Critics called the advert “offensive” and “dumb”, pointing out that the woman in the advert was already slim at the start, and that the implication that her partner thought she needed to get fitter and lose weight was patronising and damaging."

I actually saw it reported on BBC first and their article had a similar theme, but the headline has changed throughout the day. I think I saw the ad a few weeks and agree it seemed a bit quirky, but not in any way offensive. As I said, you need to be reading a lot more into than what is presented to be getting offended.

This is why the death of the humanities and therefore critical thinking is to be reversed. Reading more into it than what is presented is exactly what everyone should be doing and understanding, critically, the subtext to advertisements is now at the core of this. This forum is pretty quick to understand anti-cyclist subtexts in the media, advertising, but when this moves on to gender inequalities all hell breaks lose and comments like yours appear, where abrasiveness and dismissiveness are employed instead.

You can read into the advert as you wish, but you don't get to decide what other people find offensive. I, for example, find it offensive that Father's Day gifts advertised in Aldi, etc. present a stereotypical version of men's interests that have nothing to do with me. I find people belittling Donegal, where I'm from, "They're all muck savages up there", extremely offensive and people then take offense at being made feel bad for what they regard as banter. I take offense at being called "in all innocence" a "left footer" because my mother is Protestant.

We don't get to decide what people take offense at or feel belittled by, simply because our life stories, which inform these sensitivities, are all different and what is benign to one, is malignant to another. Taking offense at someone elses offense, however, is the real show stopper and says more about one than the other.