Girls in... threads but a no swearing plicy, makes no sense.
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote:
Ah, so you were being petty.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?
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.
You singled yourself out by starting the thread mate. If you only want people to agree with you and support everything you say then don't make contentious statements on a public forum. But like you say, pettiness was a motivator. That said, almost all of those from Cakestop who have come over here to offer their opinion have done so respectfully. It's only fair they are allowed their say if the existence of the threads they enjoy is threatened, surely?
Anyway, we're getting into one of your willy waving contests here and so I shall step away.0 -
by notsoblue » Fri Mar 2, 2012 12:24 pm
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.
Wait til you have kids... the very idea of porn makes my stomach turn. I just cant look at a young, nubile, smoking hot babe with giant norks getting slammed without thinking about my wife.0 -
Greg66 wrote:I feel bad now that none of Jaws, The Mighty Kong, Sharktopus and Godzilla are burds.
Are you SURE about that? I wasn't aware you were a marine biologist/paleontologist/sharktopologist.... (Kong = clearly a bloke)
(I like sharktopologist)
ETA: Godzilla even sounds like a girl's name...0 -
WTF? Wow, I mean I can get things way off the mark. But then there is this guy...Jonny_Trousers wrote:You singled yourself out by starting the thread mate. If you only want people to agree with you and support everything you say then don't make contentious statements on a public forum. But like you say, pettiness was a motivator. That said, almost all of those from Cakestop who have come over here to offer their opinion have done so respectfully. It's only fair they are allowed their say if the existence of the threads they enjoy is threatened, surely?
Anyway, we're getting into one of your willy waving contests here and so I shall step away.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Original Jaws was male. Second one was female, seeking revenge...lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:I feel bad now that none of Jaws, The Mighty Kong, Sharktopus and Godzilla are burds.
Are you SURE about that? I wasn't aware you were a marine biologist/paleontologist/sharktopologist.... (Kong = clearly a bloke)
(I like sharktopologist)
ETA: Godzilla even sounds like a girl's name...
Godzilla was female.
King Kong erm male.
Sharktopus. The shark was male the octopus parts female. It was inwardly conflicted and thus angry (why it won so many fights).Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
So if you can't watch porn, how do you manage your burning misogyny?clarkey cat wrote:Wait til you have kids... the very idea of porn makes my stomach turn. I just cant look at a young, nubile, smoking hot babe with giant norks getting slammed without thinking about my wife.0 -
CiB wrote: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.
I definitely, definitely don't think it's anywhere near as bad here, don't get me wrong. I dread to think that a new female member should be unfortunate enough to make their first visit to CakeStop, and that's a rather unavoidable part of the problem -- even the titles of those threads give a firm steer towards the attitude of the area, which a new female member might assume is the attitude of the entire site.
But I do think that there is a same attitude here, to a lesser extent. I mean, if you want some kind of proof, just have a look at the contributors to this thread. Sure, many have been balanced and measured but certainly not all. And what in the past has been a sort of 'Carry On Cycling' feel, which I find quite harmless, has evolved into something else which is less comfortable.0 -
MonkeyMonster wrote: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 ?
It does make sense, and I suspect that it's the reason there hasn't been anything done so far. BR cares more about viewing figures than it does about potentially alienating an entire gender. See my earlier post for further detail.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Original Jaws was male. Second one was female, seeking revenge...lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:I feel bad now that none of Jaws, The Mighty Kong, Sharktopus and Godzilla are burds.
Are you SURE about that? I wasn't aware you were a marine biologist/paleontologist/sharktopologist.... (Kong = clearly a bloke)
(I like sharktopologist)
ETA: Godzilla even sounds like a girl's name...
Godzilla was female.
King Kong erm male.
Sharktopus. The shark was male the octopus parts female. It was inwardly conflicted and thus angry (why it won so many fights).
See, now I checked imdb and there's nothing about jaws 2 being a burd, much less a widow. I thought it was, but I think that might be urban miff, innit.
Wiki refers to Godzilla as a "he".
If the octopus in Sharktopus was female, how did it ever stay out of shoe shops long enough to get into a fight? Or were the fights over the other halves of four pairs in a sale?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:But I do think that there is a same attitude here, to a lesser extent. I mean, if you want some kind of proof, just have a look at the contributors to this thread. Sure, many have been balanced and measured but certainly not all. And what in the past has been a sort of 'Carry On Cycling' feel, which I find quite harmless, has evolved into something else which is less comfortable.
and the the lack of response from a number of normally vocal people is also telling, but how much of that is also just learnt behaviour not to touch contentious issues being discussed on an internet forum...Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
CiB wrote:
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.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 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.
I get your point, and CC is a far more normal place than Crud Catcher, for example. But side-stepping the issue doesn't make it go away. I accept that sexism isn't going to go away overnight - you only have to look at the UniLad goings on recently to see that the issue is raising it's head again, but BR could do something to ensure that it doesn't happen on here.Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0 -
Greg66 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Original Jaws was male. Second one was female, seeking revenge...lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:I feel bad now that none of Jaws, The Mighty Kong, Sharktopus and Godzilla are burds.
Are you SURE about that? I wasn't aware you were a marine biologist/paleontologist/sharktopologist.... (Kong = clearly a bloke)
(I like sharktopologist)
ETA: Godzilla even sounds like a girl's name...
Godzilla was female.
King Kong erm male.
Sharktopus. The shark was male the octopus parts female. It was inwardly conflicted and thus angry (why it won so many fights).
See, now I checked imdb and there's nothing about jaws 2 being a burd, much less a widow. I thought it was, but I think that might be urban miff, innit.
Wiki refers to Godzilla as a "he".
If the octopus in Sharktopus was female, how did it ever stay out of shoe shops long enough to get into a fight? Or were the fights over the other halves of four pairs in a sale?
The fight was because the shark part didn't want to go to the shoe shop AGAIN.0 -
Careful LiT - you'll start a "feminist women DO have a GSOH" shocker if you aren't careful, and then these guys will get all confused....
Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0 -
Isn't it largely self regulating here though?msmancunia wrote:I get your point, and CC is a far more normal place than Crud Catcher, for example. But side-stepping the issue doesn't make it go away. I accept that sexism isn't going to go away overnight - you only have to look at the UniLad goings on recently to see that the issue is raising it's head again, but BR could do something to ensure that it doesn't happen on here.0 -
Greg66 wrote:See, now I checked imdb and there's nothing about jaws 2 being a burd, much less a widow. I thought it was, but I think that might be urban miff, innit.
Wiki refers to Godzilla as a "he".
If the octopus in Sharktopus was female, how did it ever stay out of shoe shops long enough to get into a fight? Or were the fights over the other halves of four pairs in a sale?
I think 3rd jaws - the awful 3d was def female because its wee baby dies at the start - hence all the rage. Love the idea of sharktopus not being able to leave shoe sales
godzilla laid eggs... not being funny but you need certain "bits" to create them so at very least half burd half bloke... referered to assexual and an it.Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
Careful LiT - you'll start a "feminist women DO have a GSOH" shocker
don't think there's any danger of that0 -
msmancunia wrote:Careful LiT - you'll start a "feminist women DO have a GSOH" shocker if you aren't careful, and then these guys will get all confused....
I don't actually consider myself a feminist... but I do have a sense of humour! 0 -
I am really surprised at the debate around the issue of whether Girls in whatever and associated commentary is appropriate for any forum on BikeRadar. Do many members feel that these threads need to be protected?! The internet has no shortage of this content nor of places to discuss it. I can appreciate the female form and I find women in sports attractive, but if I wanted to view images of such, I wouldn't come to BikeRadar for it. In fact, the number of ridiculous threads and offensive comments in various threads on many of the sub-forums is just so much noise and degrades the signal to noise ratio, tarnishing the whole BR brand.
The fact that some members are concerned about potentially disrespectful threads and comments seems to be a good enough reason for us all to think about what is appropriate on a bike related forum. And in case I haven't made myself clear, in my opinion, photos of girls in stuff is not appropriate for these cycling forums. (Nor is what you had for dinner last night although this probably isn't disrespectful, just annoying (see s/n ratio)).
As for the, if you don't like it don't look, as someone else posted, that's not addressing the issue.0 -
dpaulett wrote:I am really surprised at the debate around the issue of whether Girls in whatever and associated commentary is appropriate for any forum on BikeRadar. Do many members feel that these threads need to be protected?! The internet has no shortage of this content nor of places to discuss it. I can appreciate the female form and I find women in sports attractive, but if I wanted to view images of such, I wouldn't come to BikeRadar for it. In fact, the number of ridiculous threads and offensive comments in various threads on many of the sub-forums is just so much noise and degrades the signal to noise ratio, tarnishing the whole BR brand.
The fact that some members are concerned about potentially disrespectful threads and comments seems to be a good enough reason for us all to think about what is appropriate on a bike related forum. And in case I haven't made myself clear, in my opinion, photos of girls in stuff is not appropriate for these cycling forums. (Nor is what you had for dinner last night although this probably isn't disrespectful, just annoying (see s/n ratio)).
As for the, if you don't like it don't look, as someone else posted, that's not addressing the issue.
+10 -
Oops begging your pardon. I'm more of an "equalist" myself...Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0
-
msmancunia wrote:Oops begging your pardon. I'm more of an "equalist" myself...
Oh don't worry! I like "equalist" 0 -
dpaulett wrote:I am really surprised at the debate around the issue of whether Girls in whatever and associated commentary is appropriate for any forum on BikeRadar. Do many members feel that these threads need to be protected?! The internet has no shortage of this content nor of places to discuss it. I can appreciate the female form and I find women in sports attractive, but if I wanted to view images of such, I wouldn't come to BikeRadar for it. In fact, the number of ridiculous threads and offensive comments in various threads on many of the sub-forums is just so much noise and degrades the signal to noise ratio, tarnishing the whole BR brand.
The fact that some members are concerned about potentially disrespectful threads and comments seems to be a good enough reason for us all to think about what is appropriate on a bike related forum. And in case I haven't made myself clear, in my opinion, photos of girls in stuff is not appropriate for these cycling forums. (Nor is what you had for dinner last night although this probably isn't disrespectful, just annoying (see s/n ratio)).
As for the, if you don't like it don't look, as someone else posted, that's not addressing the issue.
Very well put.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:dpaulett wrote:I am really surprised at the debate around the issue of whether Girls in whatever and associated commentary is appropriate for any forum on BikeRadar. Do many members feel that these threads need to be protected?! The internet has no shortage of this content nor of places to discuss it. I can appreciate the female form and I find women in sports attractive, but if I wanted to view images of such, I wouldn't come to BikeRadar for it. In fact, the number of ridiculous threads and offensive comments in various threads on many of the sub-forums is just so much noise and degrades the signal to noise ratio, tarnishing the whole BR brand.
The fact that some members are concerned about potentially disrespectful threads and comments seems to be a good enough reason for us all to think about what is appropriate on a bike related forum. And in case I haven't made myself clear, in my opinion, photos of girls in stuff is not appropriate for these cycling forums. (Nor is what you had for dinner last night although this probably isn't disrespectful, just annoying (see s/n ratio)).
As for the, if you don't like it don't look, as someone else posted, that's not addressing the issue.
+2. Very succinctly put.Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:
The fight was because the shark part didn't want to go to the shoe shop until they had these in
FTFYNobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.
They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.
Sound familiar ?
The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Isn't it largely self regulating here though?msmancunia wrote:I get your point, and CC is a far more normal place than Crud Catcher, for example. But side-stepping the issue doesn't make it go away. I accept that sexism isn't going to go away overnight - you only have to look at the UniLad goings on recently to see that the issue is raising it's head again, but BR could do something to ensure that it doesn't happen on here.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? However, I've never complained about anything on here before because I didn't think anybody would be listening so I'm as guilty as the next person. But I will in future.Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0 -
dpaulett wrote:..... And in case I haven't made myself clear, in my opinion, photos of girls in stuff is not appropriate for these cycling forums.....
And what about if it's in non cycling OT forums ?Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
MattC59 wrote:Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.
They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.
Sound familiar ?
The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.
Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.
And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.0 -
MattC59 wrote:dpaulett wrote:..... And in case I haven't made myself clear, in my opinion, photos of girls in stuff is not appropriate for these cycling forums.....
And what about if it's in non cycling OT forums ?
This is a cycling website. All its forums are cycling forums. If you want to post that sort of thing try scantilycladgirlradar.com0 -
dpaulett wrote:INor is what you had for dinner last night although this probably isn't disrespectful, just annoying (see s/n ratio)).
thing is though, this is a "Commuting Chat" does it stipulate in rules somewhere that all threads on Bikeradar have to be about bikes?
if you see a thread that isn't about bikes just ignore it
Simples!Keeping it classy since '830
This discussion has been closed.
