No more girls
Comments
-
Well said all of you!
And just like Popette, I too am girlie cyclist who found the sportswomen on the page very insirational....... I wish my legs looked like that!
Shame on those who sulked and complained!!!0 -
Totally agree with Steve. The fact that threads like this exist may also help to explain why so few woman take part in this forum.SteveR_100Milers wrote:c'mon guys gotta grow up sometime...anyone ever tell you that some women might not actually enjoy being the focus of explicit male hormones.....
I agree with Popette that it is great to have inspirational pictures of female cyclists - and male ones as well - but this thread descended into soft porn, and if some of the pictures were takenor used without permission then the woman concerned had every right to object.0 -
A llittle background info
As I was the one who started the thread I have been sent emails from girls whose pics have been posted. It was not the pics but rather some of the following comments about the pics that have caused offence.
I requested that the thread be removed as I do not wish to cause offence.
It is up to the moderators to chose what to to do now.
george0 -
I think the reason so few women take part in this forum is probably because so few women take up cycling as a sport.dannygcp wrote:
Totally agree with Steve. The fact that threads like this exist may also help to explain why so few woman take part in this forum.SteveR_100Milers wrote:c'mon guys gotta grow up sometime...anyone ever tell you that some women might not actually enjoy being the focus of explicit male hormones.....
The ratio of women to men in cycling probably reflects the ratio of women to men on this forum, IMO.0 -
I took up biking alone while I was still living on the west coast for a few reasons. One of which was because I got so disgusted with listening to the guys I was pedaling with talk about the problems or sexual activities they experienced with their women. "How many times are you going to tell this story?"
The group that I was with, 4 core riders and, at times, a few other guys would show up, were pretty cool, save for one guy. Anytime someone new would show up to ride, the "one" suddenly had some new whine or conquest to 'share.'
It got to be 'the same old-same old' really too often. When the occaisional female would show up, there was no conversation between the men at all.
It wasn't a mystery to me.
I met my current, and only wife, through an online ad seeking a female to trail ride with, due to dodging men on my part.
With re: to On The Road.....back home in Seattle, the ratio of women to men on bikes is really very high. Probably around three men to a woman. Mostly street, but a few trail as well.0 -
I agree completely, On The Road. And I can't imagine for one minute that because the thread exists, women are choosing not to take part in the forum.on the road wrote:
I think the reason so few women take part in this forum is probably because so few women take up cycling as a sport.dannygcp wrote:............. The fact that threads like this exist may also help to explain why so few woman take part in this forum.
The ratio of women to men in cycling probably reflects the ratio of women to men on this forum, IMO.
However, the subliminal messages that threads like 'Girls in Lycra' send out to women are along the lines of "this is a boys' club", "there aren't many women in this sport", "women are a bit of an exception rather than the norm", "what a woman looks like on a bike is more important than her athletic ability" etc etc. Of course none of these messages are offensive, and nobody could argue they are wrong.............. BUT they all contribute to making women feel this sport isn't for them. If women did think the sport was for them, they would take part in it to the same extent as they do in running or triathlon.
Take Gabby Day, for instance, and the attention she has received on the "Girls in Lycra" thread. Then think of Helen Wyman, her fellow elite CX rider. Helen has had podium placings in CX World Cup events this season, but I don't see anywhere on the forum any interest whatsoever in her as a female cyclist and her fantastic achievements. I'm sorry - the idea that you're all admiring any of these women for their athletic prowess is nonsense.
I've very very rarely met anyone in the world of cycling who was consciously derogatory about women taking part in the sport. However, there are undercurrents wherever you look which send out the message to women - "this sport is for mainly for blokes" - and the Girls in Lycra thread, I think, is one of them.
Of course in many ways it's harmless fun, but it doesn't help those of us who are working hard to try to even out the gender imbalance in our sport.
Ruth0 -
Ruth - your comments have certainly hit home with me and I shan't be contributing to the GILS thread anymore - I should know better at my age. Sorry lads, but I think it's time to let the GILS thread rest in peace.0
-
Well they can always ride in a burkha 8)SteveR_100Milers wrote:c'mon guys gotta grow up sometime...anyone ever tell you that some women might not actually enjoy being the focus of explicit male hormones.....0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:
I agree completely, On The Road. And I can't imagine for one minute that because the thread exists, women are choosing not to take part in the forum.on the road wrote:
I think the reason so few women take part in this forum is probably because so few women take up cycling as a sport.dannygcp wrote:............. The fact that threads like this exist may also help to explain why so few woman take part in this forum.
The ratio of women to men in cycling probably reflects the ratio of women to men on this forum, IMO.
However, the subliminal messages that threads like 'Girls in Lycra' send out to women are along the lines of "this is a boys' club", "there aren't many women in this sport", "women are a bit of an exception rather than the norm", "what a woman looks like on a bike is more important than her athletic ability" etc etc. Of course none of these messages are offensive, and nobody could argue they are wrong.............. BUT they all contribute to making women feel this sport isn't for them. If women did think the sport was for them, they would take part in it to the same extent as they do in running or triathlon.
Take Gabby Day, for instance, and the attention she has received on the "Girls in Lycra" thread. Then think of Helen Wyman, her fellow elite CX rider. Helen has had podium placings in CX World Cup events this season, but I don't see anywhere on the forum any interest whatsoever in her as a female cyclist and her fantastic achievements. I'm sorry - the idea that you're all admiring any of these women for their athletic prowess is nonsense.
I've very very rarely met anyone in the world of cycling who was consciously derogatory about women taking part in the sport. However, there are undercurrents wherever you look which send out the message to women - "this sport is for mainly for blokes" - and the Girls in Lycra thread, I think, is one of them.
Of course in many ways it's harmless fun, but it doesn't help those of us who are working hard to try to even out the gender imbalance in our sport.
Ruth
Another convert to your viewpoint. I did see the thread as a bit of fun but your comments are entirely correct.I have pain!0 -
It's time to have a rethink.
The position we should try to achieve is to have equality of treatment for both male and female cyclists.
Currently, the females in our sport are objectified in this thread. Not perhaps to the extent that the soft porn aspects of the media do but nevertheless it is about objectification.
To achieve equality therefoe we either objectify the males - Boys in Lycra Shorts; or we call a halt to the GILS thread.
On the predecessor to this forum, a Boys in Lycra Shorts thread was pretty well dead on arrival. So not an option I suggest.
Instead - set up an official forum poll and let democracy prevail. That way it doesn't look like PC control and we can gracefully achieve equality - at least on this forum.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
pedylan wrote:Instead - set up an official forum poll and let democracy prevail. That way it doesn't look like PC control and we can gracefully achieve equality - at least on this forum.
There have been some good points raised by all sides. It is very easy for me to hide behind the "Admiring Athletic Ability" arguement.
I suggest the poll is a fair and simple way to make the decision. And, as one of the contributors to the GILS thread, I agree to abide by any result.
Harmless fun can get out of hand too easily!0 -
Hiya, I've been thinking about this a lot too. I've written and then deleted a number of times. I'm going to ramble now......
If what I see on the road is representative, then no one could argue that there is definitely an imbalance. However, there is a decline in girls participation in sport in general because it's not thought to be cool (or so 5live tell me) and this may be affecting cycling in the same way as other sports. I think that women are more risk averse and perhaps less likely to start cycling because of perceived dangers on the road (either from traffic on busy roads or from being attacked on secluded roads or trails) - well these are the things that my girlfriends get worried about when I tell them I'm out cycling for a few hours on my own. When I go out on my own, it is definitely my safety that I'm thinking about most.
I have never really felt that it's a boys club although I do confess to having wondered whether cycling attracts more pervs than the average sport! I can cope with the odd perv though so still doesn't put me off
Seeing pictures of women cyclists on this thread really does inspire me on - like Classh, I look at their legs with admiration and just want to stick a picture of them on my fridge. The fact that those wonderful pictures are mixed with porn confuses things and I suppose that if I were a teenager looking at bikeradar for the first time, perhaps I would feel differently about the whole thread. I could be wrong in this but there doesn't seem to be huge coverage of female cyclists in the media in general and it's this thread that first alerted me to the existence of Gabby Day and Jess Varnish (who I saw at the revolution and thought - ah, I've seen her flying on her rollers!).
The vote is a good idea. My vote would go for continuing to see pictures of female competitive cyclists on their bikes in their kit but to drop the seedy elements. That's just the view of one person though. Ruth, you could well be right that this may put others off and that would be really sad. I would hate anyone to miss out on what is a most fantastic sport.0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:[
r, the subliminal messages that threads like 'Girls in Lycra' send out to women are along the lines of "this is a boys' club", "there aren't many women in this sport", "women are a bit of an exception rather than the norm", "what a woman looks like on a bike is more important than her athletic ability" etc etc. Of course none of these messages are offensive, and nobody could argue they are wrong.............. BUT they all contribute to making women feel this sport isn't for them. If women did think the sport was for them, they would take part in it to the same extent as they do in running or triathlon.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................I've very very rarely met anyone in the world of cycling who was consciously derogatory about women taking part in the sport. However, there are undercurrents wherever you look which send out the message to women - "this sport is for mainly for blokes" - and the Girls in Lycra thread, I think, is one of them.
Of course in many ways it's harmless fun, but it doesn't help those of us who are working hard to try to even out the gender imbalance in our sport.
Ruth
Ruth, spot on
I was a fairly enthusiastic contributor/voyeur (there, I've said it) to the GILS thread, and became increasingly embarrassed at the ever more tenuous connection with cycling.
As a result I haven't visited a lot recently, and contributed even less.
OTOH, I do think it's OK to think "Phoar" or even to say it, in celebration of the female form, recognising how attractive it is......especially in lycra.
I've been very flattered in the last couple of years, when on the odd occasion girls have yelled after me "Nice legs" or similar, but understand the novelty value had something to do with it.
it's not likely to happen in my case, but I do understand that to be objectivised as a sex object all the time would become trying.“It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best..." Ernest Hemingway0 -
I can confirm that Ken is totally hot in lycra.0
-
The GILS can still exist, posters just have to be sensible and post decent images, ie, non porn.0
-
After reading the previous posts I would say I agree with Popette, but I think the current 'girls in lycra shorts' thread should be removed and a new one started, one that features both men and women.
Also, an issue that hasn't been mentioned so far is that of copyright. I think it would be better to only post photos that you've taken yourself.
Red Rock0 -
When you start reading GILS thread from the beginning, it really does look quite bad. I'm up to page 30 ish and have only come across a small number of the "proper" photographs that I like looking at. I think it definitely improved as time went on and we did have lots of brilliant photographs of female cyclists actually cycling but the first 30 pages at least are predominantly of women posing at trade shows or getting their kit off etc.
What about the pictures of Victoria Pendleton when she dresses up in all her little black dress and poses next to her bike? I hope that girls might see that image and think that it's possible to be a really successful cyclist and also to be feminine. I'm sure that VP is a role model to many for those reasons (amongst many others as well). I know when I did athletics that was something that I thought about - I didn't want people to think of me as some sweaty, hairy beast!; I wanted to be feminine too. Of course, guys will look at those pictures and think "phwooarr!!", but I don't see that as a problem, really.
Again, just my 2p worth.0 -
popette wrote:What about the pictures of Victoria Pendleton when she dresses up in all her little black dress and poses next to her bike?
.
Ms P warranted her own thread:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=125358340 -
fluff. wrote:popette wrote:What about the pictures of Victoria Pendleton when she dresses up in all her little black dress and poses next to her bike?
.
Ms P warranted her own thread:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12535834
Yep, she sure did - rightly so. Although you're going to get the guys saying "phwooarrr!!" at her pictures, you may also get a girl who is just getting into cycling thinking, "I'd like to be like her". When I saw those track cyclists at the revolution I thought to myself, why on earth didn't I get into this when I was younger? With these thighs I think I would have been alright at it! (I'm turning into chris hoy- weight going down, thighs getting bigger!). The reason I didn't get into it was because I was completely unaware of it's existence at the time. If you're at school being fed a sporting diet of hockey, netball & athletics etc, how do you get into cycling? If VP had been around at the time, maybe I would have paid more attention to it. Hopefully women like VP and nicole cooke will encourage more young girls to get into cycling.
Sorry, rambling again.......0 -
-
redddraggon wrote:More pics of Nicole Cooke then?
+Welsh
+Cyclist
+Female
+Successful
Well done Redddragon, she is one inspiring lady, who hasn't resorted to the lacy glam cheap shot.
My favourites also include Jeannie Longo (to hell with age), and Beryl Burton (to hell with gender).
These are true roll models.0 -
GIRLS= Human females 17 years and younger.
WOMEN= Human females 18 years and above.
Any questions?0 -
bikers46 wrote:GIRLS= Human females 17 years and younger.
WOMEN= Human females 18 years and above.
Any questions?
Yes, please could you expand on the point that you are trying to make?0 -
You must be dense. Really, really dense. Who, as mature male adult, has a desire for girls? And the women who may post here surely don't appreciate being called girls. This has to be a cultural thing. I'll stick with women. Full grown, mature, lushious women. Best female of any 'species' (sic) on the planet. The respect they certainly deserve.
I'm amazed that you don't understand the difference.0 -
bikers46 wrote:GIRLS= Human females 17 years and younger.
WOMEN= Human females 18 years and above.
Any questions?
Not really. GIRL does not necessarily equal CHILD, around here it generally means young female, perhaps it means something a bit different in Yankee land.
GIRL here is used as a word along the same lines as the word LAD.0 -
SecretSqirrel wrote:bikers46 wrote:GIRLS= Human females 17 years and younger.
WOMEN= Human females 18 years and above.
Any questions?
Yes, please could you expand on the point that you are trying to make?
You've got to be below 30 years old.0 -
-
-
redddraggon wrote:bikers46 wrote:GIRLS= Human females 17 years and younger.
WOMEN= Human females 18 years and above.
Any questions?
Not really. GIRL does not necessarily equal CHILD, around here it generally means young female, perhaps it means something a bit different in Yankee land.
GIRL here is used as a word along the same lines as the word LAD.
Yes, in Ynkee Land it means respect. OK the gloves are on. You guys are so predictable. Especially you, Dragon.
Hats off, from "Yankee Land."
0
