Girls in... threads but a no swearing plicy, makes no sense.

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

Nudity and images of a sexual content are also associated as being and adult/mature yet these were widly accepted on bikeradar.

D. This is where you're going round in circles. Images in Girls In threads aren't 'widely accepted', they're ghettoised, shoved off into places where people know that they exist but we don't have to look if we don't want to. Compartmentalisation, no?

For the most part, it's pretty tame stuff but has on a couple of occasions over-stepped the mark - thanks hugely for posting those NSFW images on P16 btw; I can do without that sort of thing appearing on this laptop in my office. So a few tame threads as they stand - for the most part - are ok in my mind, but maybe not for some others. I fully agree that the doggy & the loo shots are too much and should have been reported / removed but we're now using images like that that do overstep the mark as a reason to clamp down on something that's not even close to soft porn most of the time. It's pictures of girls in clothes.

Have we come to this? Any picture of a reasonably attractive woman wearing less than full body armour is indicative of the oppression of women? I don't think so. If it is, we'll have to start banging on about The Telegraph using this young lovely to illustrate their ooh how do I fix a computer without using Google feature.

DonDaddyD

CIB, fair point.

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

Anyone under 18 is likely to be either bored sh*tless

I'd imagine there's quite a few over 18 who find it pretty tedious too.

The under 18's are all off fapping or schlucking to the girls in ... threads

I think the correct verb is "schlick", not "schluck".

Take that G66...

msmancunia

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Nudity and images of a sexual content are also associated as being and adult/mature yet these were widly accepted on bikeradar.

D. This is where you're going round in circles. Images in Girls In threads aren't 'widely accepted', they're ghettoised, shoved off into places where people know that they exist but we don't have to look if we don't want to. Compartmentalisation, no?

For the most part, it's pretty tame stuff but has on a couple of occasions over-stepped the mark - thanks hugely for posting those NSFW images on P16 btw; I can do without that sort of thing appearing on this laptop in my office. So a few tame threads as they stand - for the most part - are ok in my mind, but maybe not for some others. I fully agree that the doggy & the loo shots are too much and should have been reported / removed but we're now using images like that that do overstep the mark as a reason to clamp down on something that's not even close to soft porn most of the time. It's pictures of girls in clothes.

Have we come to this? Any picture of a reasonably attractive woman wearing less than full body armour is indicative of the oppression of women? I don't think so. If it is, we'll have to start banging on about The Telegraph using this young lovely to illustrate their ooh how do I fix a computer without using Google feature.

This isn't a dig, but I think you're not quite getting the marginalisation thing which was referred to earlier in the thread. Things like the Girls in... threads, sexist bike shops (there's at least one in the North West I could name), harassment on your commute all combine to give a girl not much encouragement to cycle, because it could be seen as a misogenystic sport. I do know that I've held off joining a cycling club for this reason, and I'm no shy retiring wall flower. It's not so much the standards of each individual picture, its the whole attitude. If women see male cyclists acting like cavemen (see Cakestop and Crudcatcher) then it doesn't really paint a good picture of the sport, does it?

In the year I've spent cycling to work, I've spent £1k on a bike, probably £400 on clothes, and £200 on services, pedals etc. Cycling is a growing industry, and it would be a shame to alienate half the population because the other half are acting like schoolboys. It's all very well a bike club posting a welcome to women thing on their website, but that's not going to do much to help if a proportion of their members have a rather different attitude in practice.

lost_in_thought

So, the CakeStop crew come on over, one posts rants about legality, drawing DDD into a pointless 'debate', one posts a 'hilarious' picture of some boobs. Yeah, I think we can accurately measure their response to this sort of thing. Glad this thread wasn't in CakeStop or msmancunia, velocaestrapture and I would probably have awoken this morning to the online equivalent of horse's heads in our beds.

Mods: it's NOT as binary as you're saying, that deliberately reductionist view serves only to reinforce my opinion that actually you'd rather those complaining just stopped it. You don't want to upset the boy's club that you know makes up a good majority of your readers in order to sanitize the forums for female consumption. And hey, why would you? There's barely any women posting on the forums anyway, who cares what they think?

Bottom line: this is a cycling forum. Cycling is something both genders do. Those sorts of thread serve to alienate 1 of 2 genders.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

Probably start off with this:

velocestrapture wrote:

I have previously asked the mods if they would amend their posting guidance to include a prohibition on sexist and disabilist comments as well as racist and homophobic, but got no response. I suppose they have to do a balancing act in terms of attracting advertising revenue between making this site more female-friendly, and keeping the rather more juvenile posters who can't have fun on a cycling forum without looking at semi-naked women every day.

I have no problem with that. Do you think the picture in girls in Lycra are sexist though? I think not. It is Sexual objectification but not sexism as no discrimination is taking place.

jonny_trousers

DonDaddyD wrote:

I actually think it is pathetic that Eke and Jonny_Trousers encouraged other users to flame me.

Well basically you're right. I did start that post in Cakestop as revenge for you patronising me for what I said to Velosorapter. But then isn't your whole thread about civil liberties and protecting the weak? I'm actually surprised you didn't wish to address those who created and enjoy those threads directly in the first place if it was discussion you were after. It's surely only fair they have their say too, right?

lost_in_thought

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

Probably start off with this:

velocestrapture wrote:

I have previously asked the mods if they would amend their posting guidance to include a prohibition on sexist and disabilist comments as well as racist and homophobic, but got no response. I suppose they have to do a balancing act in terms of attracting advertising revenue between making this site more female-friendly, and keeping the rather more juvenile posters who can't have fun on a cycling forum without looking at semi-naked women every day.

I have no problem with that. Do you think the picture in girls in Lycra are sexist though? I think not. It is Sexual objectification but not sexism as no discrimination is taking place.

The discrimination is inherent in the objectification.

msmancunia

lost_in_thought wrote:

So, the CakeStop crew come on over, one posts rants about legality, drawing DDD into a pointless 'debate', one posts a 'hilarious' picture of some boobs. Yeah, I think we can accurately measure their response to this sort of thing. Glad this thread wasn't in CakeStop or msmancunia, velocaestrapture and I would probably have awoken this morning to the online equivalent of horse's heads in our beds.

Mods: it's NOT as binary as you're saying, that deliberately reductionist view serves only to reinforce my opinion that actually you'd rather those complaining just stopped it. You don't want to upset the boy's club that you know makes up a good majority of your readers in order to sanitize the forums for female consumption. And hey, why would you? There's barely any women posting on the forums anyway, who cares what they think?

Bottom line: this is a cycling forum. Cycling is something both genders do. Those sorts of thread serve to alienate 1 of 2 genders.

+1. You could also argue that this is the reason why there are barely any women posting on the forums.

lost_in_thought

msmancunia wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

So, the CakeStop crew come on over, one posts rants about legality, drawing DDD into a pointless 'debate', one posts a 'hilarious' picture of some boobs. Yeah, I think we can accurately measure their response to this sort of thing. Glad this thread wasn't in CakeStop or msmancunia, velocaestrapture and I would probably have awoken this morning to the online equivalent of horse's heads in our beds.

Mods: it's NOT as binary as you're saying, that deliberately reductionist view serves only to reinforce my opinion that actually you'd rather those complaining just stopped it. You don't want to upset the boy's club that you know makes up a good majority of your readers in order to sanitize the forums for female consumption. And hey, why would you? There's barely any women posting on the forums anyway, who cares what they think?

Bottom line: this is a cycling forum. Cycling is something both genders do. Those sorts of thread serve to alienate 1 of 2 genders.

+1. You could also argue that this is the reason why there are barely any women posting on the forums.

Precisely! It's a cyclic problem -- there are barely any women, probably in no small part thanks to this 'boys' club' mentality, but because there are so few women the mods don't want to upset the boys' club, so back we go to the start.

Coriander

To answer the original question, maybe it's as simple as the Girls in... threads are quite clearly going to contain what they do contain so can be avoided if desired, whereas offence and/or upset could be caused by the use of swear words in a thread which someone is reading but hasn't avoided because they were not forewarned.

CiB

msmancunia wrote:

This isn't a dig, but I think you're not quite getting the marginalisation thing which was referred to earlier in the thread. Things like the Girls in... threads, sexist bike shops (there's at least one in the North West I could name), harassment on your commute all combine to give a girl not much encouragement to cycle, because it could be seen as a misogenystic sport. I do know that I've held off joining a cycling club for this reason, and I'm no shy retiring wall flower. It's not so much the standards of each individual picture, its the whole attitude. If women see male cyclists acting like cavemen (see Cakestop and Crudcatcher) then it doesn't really paint a good picture of the sport, does it?

In the year I've spent cycling to work, I've spent £1k on a bike, probably £400 on clothes, and £200 on services, pedals etc. Cycling is a growing industry, and it would be a shame to alienate half the population because the other half are acting like schoolboys. It's all very well a bike club posting a welcome to women thing on their website, but that's not going to do much to help if a proportion of their members have a rather different attitude in practice.

I'm almost with you on this, except that BR is one of the most balanced - and within reason a home for some quite intelligent and reasoned debate - places that I've found, which is why I like it (usually). It happens that over in a far flung part of it there are some chaps who've got a viewpoint that doesn't wholly reflect the attitude found in pretty much all of the rest of the place. Fancy that - it's almost like real life.

I don't see one corner of it acting as a reflection of the greater part, more as a welcome acceptance that it's not necessary to be a fully-fledged card-carrying Guardian reader to feel at ease on here. Sure - Cake Stop has a different tone to Commuting Chat, but then so does Commuting General and Road Beginners. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and some parts are [very] easily side-stepped.

sketchley

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

Probably start off with this:

velocestrapture wrote:

I have previously asked the mods if they would amend their posting guidance to include a prohibition on sexist and disabilist comments as well as racist and homophobic, but got no response. I suppose they have to do a balancing act in terms of attracting advertising revenue between making this site more female-friendly, and keeping the rather more juvenile posters who can't have fun on a cycling forum without looking at semi-naked women every day.

I have no problem with that. Do you think the picture in girls in Lycra are sexist though? I think not. It is Sexual objectification but not sexism as no discrimination is taking place.

The discrimination is inherent in the objectification.

But then you also get into the concept of self objectification by strong women used as a method of empowerment over men. Think Madonna.

lost_in_thought

Sketchley wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

Probably start off with this:

velocestrapture wrote:

I have previously asked the mods if they would amend their posting guidance to include a prohibition on sexist and disabilist comments as well as racist and homophobic, but got no response. I suppose they have to do a balancing act in terms of attracting advertising revenue between making this site more female-friendly, and keeping the rather more juvenile posters who can't have fun on a cycling forum without looking at semi-naked women every day.

I have no problem with that. Do you think the picture in girls in Lycra are sexist though? I think not. It is Sexual objectification but not sexism as no discrimination is taking place.

The discrimination is inherent in the objectification.

But then you also get into the concept of self objectification by strong women used as a method of empowerment over men. Think Madonna.

Indeed. So, the difference between self-objectification and objectification by others is pretty clear from your post, I assume you're just pointing it out for completeness?

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I actually think it is pathetic that Eke and Jonny_Trousers encouraged other users to flame me.

Well basically you're right. I did start that post in Cakestop as revenge for you patronising me for what I said to Velosorapter. But then isn't your whole thread about civil liberties and protecting the weak? I'm actually surprised you didn't wish to address those who created and enjoy those threads directly in the first place if it was discussion you were after. It's surely only fair they have their say too, right?

Ah, so you were being petty.

I think you fail to comprehend the concept of singling someone out and how doing so is wrong. You will understand that that is why I didn't purposefully single any one poster from the recently discussed threads, right? Any individual is allowed to enter this thread and take part in the discussion. None of my posts suggest or state that I am unwilling to discuss the issue.

Laslty singling someone out isn't about defending or practicing civil liberties or protecting the weak. In fact by trying to gather numbers to 'flame' me for my opinions, your actions imply the exact opposite.

notsoblue

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though. Is it seen as a problem in Commuting Chat? Is it just Cake Stop and other subforums? The congregations are pretty different. People are just preaching to the converted here and arguing about semantics. Perhaps the only way to effect the change you want to see is to just be more active in Cakestop? I'd suggest that its the presence of women who use this sub forum that is the reason why boundaries aren't crossed as easily here as elsewhere.

MonkeyMonster

Can you condense it down to a business case as to why BR should instigate more rigourous rules that on one hand will reduce the number of y type visitors ie revenue but potentially increase the number of x type visitors.
If this were a not for profit/government etc site then you'd get your checks very quickly. Why will BR take the monetary hit to raise its profile as trying to involve more x type people in cycling in general at the potential loss of revenue from x type.
that make sense ?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though.

I think that because the chuvanism is so rife in the other sub forums this well balanced section of the website is the only place a discussion like this could take place.

LiT already pointed out the 'Cake Stop' regulars enlightening contributions to this thread.

Paul E

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though.

I think that because the chuvanism is so rife in the other sub forums this well balanced section of the website is the only place a discussion like this could take place.

LiT already pointed out the 'Cake Stop' regulars enlightening contributions to this thread.

Still no apology for posting those photos from you to everyone that was at work and brought them up on their screen innocently.

clarkey cat

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though

NSB's right - we're soft targets for you girls TBH. Eunuchs on bikes really (especially NSB).

sketchley

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

Probably start off with this:

velocestrapture wrote:

I have previously asked the mods if they would amend their posting guidance to include a prohibition on sexist and disabilist comments as well as racist and homophobic, but got no response. I suppose they have to do a balancing act in terms of attracting advertising revenue between making this site more female-friendly, and keeping the rather more juvenile posters who can't have fun on a cycling forum without looking at semi-naked women every day.

I have no problem with that. Do you think the picture in girls in Lycra are sexist though? I think not. It is Sexual objectification but not sexism as no discrimination is taking place.

The discrimination is inherent in the objectification.

But then you also get into the concept of self objectification by strong women used as a method of empowerment over men. Think Madonna.

Indeed. So, the difference between self-objectification and objectification by others is pretty clear from your post, I assume you're just pointing it out for completeness?

The point I was hoping to make was that making a rule of the site stating no sexism would not stop the girls in threads as most of pictures are of professional models who are engaged in self objectification, therefore I cannot see the pictures as sexist. Some of the comments though...

This is not a comment about if the threads are acceptable or my opinion of them but is more about how you write an acceptable use policy that bans them without causing other censorship issues.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though.

I think that because the chuvanism is so rife in the other sub forums this well balanced section of the website is the only place a discussion like this could take place.

Honestly though, it wouldn't achieve anything. We'll still be upstanding moral citizens, and they'll still be northerners. Not unless someone does what MM suggests and BR changes their forum policies.

CiB

lost_in_thought wrote:

Precisely! It's a cyclic problem -- there are barely any women, probably in no small part thanks to this 'boys' club' mentality, but because there are so few women the mods don't want to upset the boys' club, so back we go to the start.

Is there a Boys' Club mentality on this part of it though? I don't recognise that criticism aimed correctly at CS as valid for CC. That's the crux of it; the Lower 4th over there have smuggled a naughty book in but in general the rest of the institution just goes on without bothering to make a fuss, because their book's not prominent enough or over the mark by enough of a distance to warrant making a fuss of, and really for the most part it doesn't trouble us.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I feel bad now that none of Jaws, The Mighty Kong, Sharktopus and Godzilla are burds.

DonDaddyD

I'm hooked on this, like Rick Chasey and Benefit frauds vs Tax genius.

notsoblue wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though. Is it seen as a problem in Commuting Chat? Is it just Cake Stop and other subforums? The congregations are pretty different. People are just preaching to the converted here and arguing about semantics. Perhaps the only way to effect the change you want to see is to just be more active in Cakestop? I'd suggest that its the presence of women who use this sub forum that is the reason why boundaries aren't crossed as easily here as elsewhere.

I tried to by pointing out the reputation and link between Bike Radar and its published cycling plus magazine. I wonder if there is any correlation between readers and forum users and how many are female that use both or some such study.

notsoblue

clarkey cat wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though

NSB's right - we're soft targets for you girls TBH. Eunuchs on bikes really (especially NSB).

Makes giving up porn forever much easier though.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm hooked on this, like Rick Chasey and Benefit frauds vs Tax genius.

notsoblue wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though. Is it seen as a problem in Commuting Chat? Is it just Cake Stop and other subforums? The congregations are pretty different. People are just preaching to the converted here and arguing about semantics. Perhaps the only way to effect the change you want to see is to just be more active in Cakestop? I'd suggest that its the presence of women who use this sub forum that is the reason why boundaries aren't crossed as easily here as elsewhere.

I tried to by pointing out the reputation and link between Bike Radar and its published cycling plus magazine. I wonder if there is any correlation between readers and forum users and how many are female that use both or some such study.

there are pictures of girls in lycra in the published magazine..... Some overtly sexual in order to advertise products too.....

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though.

I think that because the chuvanism is so rife in the other sub forums this well balanced section of the website is the only place a discussion like this could take place.

Honestly though, it wouldn't achieve anything. We'll still be upstanding moral citizens, and they'll still be northerners. Not unless someone does what MM suggests and BR changes their forum policies.

Posted here about something that could happen over there.

supersonic wrote:

The issues raised in this thread have been forwarded to the Admin and Mods and are under discussion.

Given how territorial each section is, the fact that this discussion has raised Admin discussion about something over there is saying something.

My next trick is to get the mountain bike section deleted and banning of all single speed content on this website.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm hooked on this, like Rick Chasey and Benefit frauds vs Tax genius.

notsoblue wrote:

Really wondering why this discussion about objectification of women and how it hurts cycling is happening in this sub forum though. Is it seen as a problem in Commuting Chat? Is it just Cake Stop and other subforums? The congregations are pretty different. People are just preaching to the converted here and arguing about semantics. Perhaps the only way to effect the change you want to see is to just be more active in Cakestop? I'd suggest that its the presence of women who use this sub forum that is the reason why boundaries aren't crossed as easily here as elsewhere.

I tried to by pointing out the reputation and link between Bike Radar and its published cycling plus magazine. I wonder if there is any correlation between readers and forum users and how many are female that use both or some such study.

Good luck with that. Doesn't interest me much. I just joined in with this thread because you were being a fanny worm.

MonkeyMonster

Greg66 wrote:

I feel bad now that none of Jaws, The Mighty Kong, Sharktopus and Godzilla are burds.

The one from the broderick film is a burd remember...