women procycling ...
Comments
-
"Have I really? I have said that because of the higher ultimate level of performance, men's racing will always been seen as being the pinnacle of the sport - and have a higher 'market value', but I did not argue that women's racing 'lacked merit'. "
"As I said earlier, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in those arguments that want to both emphasise the importance of ultimate achievement and also claim that women's cycling represents 'ultimate achievement' as much as male elite racing."
I don't accept you've actually responded to the clear contradiction pointed out here - two quotes - both yours - clearly at odds. It's important because ultimately your view does lead to a lack of merit being accorded to female sport.
Secondly I don't accept that having male and female sport and according each equal importance "acts against the interest of women." You've failed to show that that is the case. Do you feel that the women who disagree with you are labouring under false consciousness - that they are arguing against their own real interests ?
It's overly simplistic to think that because in one sphere apparently allowing for difference has had negative consequences that we must never allow for difference in any sphere. Yes I agree - there is a tendency amongst some to say men are emotional cripples - often by women who don't recognise that perhaps men might express emotion differently - but what has that got to do with the price of eggs ? You are throwing in so many arguments and often they aren't relevant to the point at hand.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Sorry, I don't see your point here. Could you explain more fully exactly what you mean, paying due regard to the context those quotes were used in?Tom Butcher wrote:"Have I really? I have said that because of the higher ultimate level of performance, men's racing will always been seen as being the pinnacle of the sport - and have a higher 'market value', but I did not argue that women's racing 'lacked merit'. "
"As I said earlier, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in those arguments that want to both emphasise the importance of ultimate achievement and also claim that women's cycling represents 'ultimate achievement' as much as male elite racing."
I don't accept you've actually responded to the clear contradiction pointed out here - two quotes - both yours - clearly at odds .
I don't recall saying that. Could you point out where I argued such a thing....Tom Butcher wrote:Secondly I don't accept that having male and female sport and according each equal importance "acts against the interest of women." You've failed to show that that is the case.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:When I was a second cat and raced / trained with some of the women on the national squad they could give the 3rd cats a hard time but not a decent second cat. My own best 10 mile TT time - achieved on a normal road bike with clip on tri-bars - was faster than the women’s competition record at the time and so on.
I think this statement is very telling.0 -
The first point is supported by two quotes of yours which aren't taken out of context - if you think they are then it's really up to you to show how. You repeatedly make the point that - in your words - women can't compete at "male like levels of excellence" -- that I don't see how you can then deny arguing women's sport lacks the merit attached to men's. It follows from your assertion that what sport is about is simply strongest, fastest etc human being.
Another quote of yours :
"And relatively speaking, someone who wins a 3rd category RR is just as much a winner as someone who wins the Tour de France. But they don't get the same level of reward and acclaim do they? Why? Because in absolute terms the performance of a Tour winner is much more impressive. You seem to be arguing that this 'higher, faster, stronger' aspect of sport should be ignored, but only when doing so favours female competitors…
So for you the peformance of men is much more impressive in absolute terms - not just faster and stronger, but MUCH MORE IMPRESSIVE. And here your argument was that if we don't accord 3rd cats equivalent status to Tour riders why should be accord women - who are also comparatively lower in terms of being "higher, faster, stronger" - equal status to Tour riders. What else did you mean by that other than female sport has less merit than male sport - that it is inherently less impressive ?
The second point yes I mistook what you were saying. I gave you credit for arguing that women only sport actually acted against the interests of women - on second reading you said no such thing - apologies. Your argument is actually that women only sport is simply sexism - discrimination against men. I don't accept that allowing men and women equal access to sport and sporting achievement is sexism in any sense of it being unfair.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
And the way to achieve this is cut the number of male events in a sport that is already woefully under-represented at the Olympics?stagehopper wrote:Cooke (and Pendleton) has wanted equal opportunities for both male and female cyclists at the Olympics. As happens in other two comparable multi-event sports Athletics and Swimming.
While you are correct in saying that they shouldn't have cut the number of men's track events to accommodate the women - unfortunately the IOC refuse to allow any more events in so the cuts have to come from within the sport.
It was either that - or nothing. Rightly or wrongly.0 -
YOU are the one conflating the term 'merit' with 'impressive' not me! Again, I have argued (a number of times now...) that perhaps there should be more emphasis on the quality of the racing rather than the absolute level of performance. However, as they say, 'What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'. So if this is done in order to validate the 'merit' of women's racing, I see no reason why it should not be done in order to validate the ‘merit’ of non-elite male competitions as well. Unless we want to be inconsistent and patronising and treat women as being a 'special case'.Tom Butcher wrote:your argument was that if we don't accord 3rd cats equivalent status to Tour riders why should be accord women - who are also comparatively lower in terms of being "higher, faster, stronger" - equal status to Tour riders. What else did you mean by that other than female sport has less merit than male sport - that it is inherently less impressive?
Yes, it's quite clear that you haven't been taking on board what I have actually been saying....Tom Butcher wrote:The second point yes I mistook what you were saying.
I think that you would find that if women were barred from competitions open to men this would be branded as being 'sexist'. Oh, and men and women are not given 'equal access'. Rather women are allowed to ride in 'male' events (even elite women being allowed to ride with 2nd/3rd cat men) and in addition women have access to events from which men are barred. I am not saying that this is wrong but let's have the honesty to accept the reality of the situation!Tom Butcher wrote:Your argument is actually that women only sport is simply sexism - discrimination against men. I don't accept that allowing men and women equal access to sport and sporting achievement is sexism in any sense of it being unfair.0 -
I know, it goes to show just how big the gap is between elite women and elite men in cycling really is. When I was into climbing the situation was very different, with many women being very impressive, even when compared with the best men. And guess what, they got just as much, if not more, acclaim and publicity as the male competitors...thegibdog wrote:
I think this statement is very telling.BikingBernie wrote:When I was a second cat and raced / trained with some of the women on the national squad they could give the 3rd cats a hard time but not a decent second cat. My own best 10 mile TT time - achieved on a normal road bike with clip on tri-bars - was faster than the women’s competition record at the time and so on.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I know, it goes to show just how big the gap is between elite women and elite men in cycling really is. When I was into climbing the situation was very different, with many women being very impressive, even when compared with the best men. And guess what, they got just as much, if not more, acclaim and publicity as the male competitors...thegibdog wrote:
I think this statement is very telling.BikingBernie wrote:When I was a second cat and raced / trained with some of the women on the national squad they could give the 3rd cats a hard time but not a decent second cat. My own best 10 mile TT time - achieved on a normal road bike with clip on tri-bars - was faster than the women’s competition record at the time and so on.
I actually meant it's very telling as to your state of mind rather than the gap between elite men and elite women.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:When I was into climbing the situation was very different, with many women being very impressive, even when compared with the best men. And guess what, they got just as much, if not more, acclaim and publicity as the male competitors...
Climbing seems to be moving pretty fast on this one - In the time I have been climbing It's gone from people finding it unusual enough to comment when i was climbing with another woman - to last sunday at the crag women outnumbering men by 2:1 (although that probably is unsusal) - and yes it was the girls doing the leading before anyone starts.
Compared to this forum over on UKClimbing i definatly don't feel in a minority (not that i mind, it's more that i'm aware of it) - and a quick scan of the news section revels 3 stories about impressive female acents.blog: bellevedere0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I know, it goes to show just how big the gap is between elite women and elite men in cycling really is. When I was into climbing the situation was very different, with many women being very impressive, even when compared with the best men. And guess what, they got just as much, if not more, acclaim and publicity as the male competitors...thegibdog wrote:
I think this statement is very telling.BikingBernie wrote:When I was a second cat and raced / trained with some of the women on the national squad they could give the 3rd cats a hard time but not a decent second cat. My own best 10 mile TT time - achieved on a normal road bike with clip on tri-bars - was faster than the women’s competition record at the time and so on.
This is a good point. Good to see you debating logically in this thread as per usual.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Yes, there are loads of female 'punters' climbing, and the women compete at a very high level on the plastic, but I feel you would have to agree that it is still very rare to find women climbing a 'chop' route and that the obsession with 'fall and die' hard grit routes is also something that is overwhelmingly dominated by 'willy waving' males! By the way John Redhead is a friend of mine. Say no more...LittleB0b wrote:Compared to this forum over on UKClimbing i definatly don't feel in a minority (not that i mind, it's more that i'm aware of it) - and a quick scan of the news section revels 3 stories about impressive female acents.
P.s I used to work as a climbing instructor at one time, and nothing gave me a bigger thrill than seeing some teenage girl flash a route that all the 'willy wavers' were falling off! In fact I would probably get a similar thrill if I saw Victorian Pendleton thrash Chris Hoy, but the reality of the situation is that isn't going to happen, and unlike some I see no problem with acknowledging the fact that Hoy is the more impressive sprinter! (Even if they both have great ‘merit’ as competitors. ). 0 -
I know!thegibdog wrote:I actually meant it's very telling as to your state of mind rather than the gap between elite men and elite women.
0 -
I can't be bothered to read through all of the posts on this topic, but just a quick thought - women make up half of the population. Can't they organise to make sure that women's sport does attain the same market value as men's sport? I mean, there's nothing stopping them going out there and giving female races and matches the same level of support, is there?0
-
-
BikingBernie wrote:YOU are the one conflating the term 'merit' with 'impressive' not me! Again, I have argued (a number of times now...) that perhaps there should be more emphasis on the quality of the racing rather than the absolute level of performance. However, as they say, 'What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'. So if this is done in order to validate the 'merit' of women's racing, I see no reason why it should not be done in order to validate the ‘merit’ of non-elite male competitions as well. Unless we want to be inconsistent and patronising and treat women as being a 'special case'.
I think that you would find that if women were barred from competitions open to men this would be branded as being 'sexist'. Oh, and men and women are not given 'equal access'. Rather women are allowed to ride in 'male' events (even elite women being allowed to ride with 2nd/3rd cat men) and in addition women have access to events from which men are barred. I am not saying that this is wrong but let's have the honesty to accept the reality of the situation!
OK so in your terms Paula Radcliffe's marathon record is not as impressive as someone like Jon Brown's marathon times - to pretend that is somehow different to saying it has less merit is splitting hairs.
Treat women as a special case ? If you think taking account of the differences between men and women makes them a special case then yes - make a special case. Is that really patronising women ? Do any women here feel patronised because Pendleton doesn't have to compete against Hoy ? Is it patronising to have youth sport too ?
The point is there is no intrinsic value in riding a bike fast or running quickly other than that which we as a society place upon it. If we follow your logic then I think the value of sport would be greatly reduced and the opportunities for women and the chance of female role models certainly would be. You argue it's inconsistent to differentiate on the grounds of sex but not on genetic talent (vo2 max?) - but if you want to be silly why are you happy to differentiate on the ground of species and disallow cheetahs from the 100m sprint or gorillas from wrestling ?
The fact is in our society we generally see equality of opportunity for males and females as a good thing - it is seen as being fair - and fairness is generally seen as being a good thing. Equality of opportunity based on VO2 max is not an underpinning principle of any society. Ultimately these kind of values are choices - but your choices do deny women equality of opportunity - that is the crux of the matter no matter how many words you dress it up with.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
It might not surprise you to hear that Dan Osman is dead...frenchfighter wrote:
He had balls though, if you see what I mean.
Anyhow, just to spice things up, can anyone imagine a female playing the electric guitar like this... (Cue Bill Hicks).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIvs4j4I ... re=related
Or this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK89EVPRaX4
You can almost smell the testosterone!0 -
Eh? Can you point out exactly where I have said that women's only events should be scrapped?Tom Butcher wrote:your choices do deny women equality of opportunity - that is the crux of the matter no matter how many words you dress it up with.0 -
They are probably too busy going out shopping for shoes.johnfinch wrote:I can't be bothered to read through all of the posts on this topic, but just a quick thought - women make up half of the population. Can't they organise to make sure that women's sport does attain the same market value as men's sport? I mean, there's nothing stopping them going out there and giving female races and matches the same level of support, is there?
Ok, I am getting a bit bored with this little game now. Can someone start a thread about Armstrong. 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Eh? Can you point out exactly where I have said that women's only events should be scrapped?Tom Butcher wrote:your choices do deny women equality of opportunity - that is the crux of the matter no matter how many words you dress it up with.
So you think Cooke is right in wanting parity in Olympic events now ? Glad to see you are coming round to my view.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
It might not surprise you to hear that Dan Osman is dead...frenchfighter wrote:
He had balls though, if you see what I mean.
Anyhow, just to spice things up, can anyone imagine a female playing the electric guitar like this... (Cue Bill Hicks).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIvs4j4I ... re=related
Or this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK89EVPRaX4
You can almost smell the testosterone!
To go further OT : "can anyone imagine a female playing the electric guitar like this" yes : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeaBNAXfHfQ
Jimi's roots were people like this. She was ballsy to the n'th degree.
Incidentally, I was around when Jimi was at his peak in London back then, and also Free entertained me on several good nights also. Good stuff !"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
I do not see how Cooke expects the UCI to give women parity with men when it comes to recognition and reward. Market forces will dictate what deal they get.0
-
The Prodigy wrote:I do not see how Cooke expects the UCI to give women parity with men when it comes to recognition and reward. Market forces will dictate what deal they get.
Firstly, the entire point about the olympics is that it doesn't, and shouldn't, take things such as market forces into consideration. The olympics is about show-casing sport, not business.
Secondly, it's quite difficult to gain market share when there are less races to watch than the competition.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:The Prodigy wrote:I do not see how Cooke expects the UCI to give women parity with men when it comes to recognition and reward. Market forces will dictate what deal they get.
Firstly, the entire point about the olympics is that it doesn't, and shouldn't, take things such as market forces into consideration. The olympics is about show-casing sport, not business.
Secondly, it's quite difficult to gain market share when there are less races to watch than the competition.
Firstly, I agree about the olympics but what does this have to do with Cookes comments on reward and recognition?
Secondly, if there was sufficient demand for more races it would happen!0 -
The Prodigy wrote:teagar wrote:The Prodigy wrote:I do not see how Cooke expects the UCI to give women parity with men when it comes to recognition and reward. Market forces will dictate what deal they get.
Firstly, the entire point about the olympics is that it doesn't, and shouldn't, take things such as market forces into consideration. The olympics is about show-casing sport, not business.
Secondly, it's quite difficult to gain market share when there are less races to watch than the competition.
Firstly, I agree about the olympics but what does this have to do with Cookes comments on reward and recognition?
Secondly, if there was sufficient demand for more races it would happen!
Chicken or egg.
Should certainly give parity in the olympics whatever the case is!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0
