Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation
Comments
-
msmancunia wrote:MattC59 wrote:Nice to see that things have progressed today
At this precise moment in time, I don't overly care though, as I've just eated Hare loin with Foie Gras, followed by Venison with Ox tongue and then a Tonka Bean Panacotta with poached rhubarb and rhubarb sorbet, in a two star Michelin resteraunt.
Tomorrow I shall read todays posts and think about joining the discussion again
You've obviously also had a skinful of vino, judging by that extremely far-out spelling of "resteraunt"
aaah.......... yes, oops :oops:
edited Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:Greg66 wrote:Where we are now is a bit "wild west"
I just don't believe there are female cyclists out there who refuse to take part anywhere on the forum because they object to what goes on in Cake Stop.
So yours is a vote for 4) then? Or a combination of 3) and 4)? To make it easier I will permit votes in more than one category.
My opinion doesn't really matter and the silly thing is I don't really care what happens either. I can and do enjoy looking at pictures of particularly attractive women, but I also know there is an internet full of such pictures if I want them. I don't need to go into Cake Stop to get my fix and if they do end up being banned there then I will not really worry about it beyond thinking a bunch of lads who were just being lads have been tarred with a brush they didn't deserve. There are only really two reasons why I've been so verbal on this subject: 1. the sheer hypocrisy of DDD got right up my nose and 2. I found much of your particular argument to be offensive to ordinary, decent men. If you'd directed your criticism towards the "Women in realistic situations" thread I probably wouldn't have bothered to come out in support of you, but I certainly wouldn't have argued against you. To my mind, beyond a few childish accompanying comments, the rest of the "Girls in..." threads were born of harmless camaraderie between a bunch of male bike fans killing time together, and are not an indicator that they are misogynist degenerates just waiting until they can go and abuse some poor girl going about her business (nor do I think viewing such images breeds sexism). Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
Like I say, your argument, though I don't agree with it, I can respect because you truly feel passionate about it. It's those who have whined that they don't really like such pictures, yet have never contacted the mods about them, have never spend any meaningful time in Cake Stop (nor really wanted to), and have never tried to engage those who have posted such threads, that I feel are just being busybodies and spoilsports.
This is the closest opinion to my own regarding the threads. I'm a cakestop regular I guess who has only looked at the 'girls' threads occasionally when bored (my biggest fascination with them is the variety of the more bizarre poses/types of shot but hey, who would believe me?!) and the amount of time some people have spent posting about something so insignificant is astounding. Will removing them increase the number of female cakestop members? I seriously doubt it. Let's face it, if you are too timid to post anonymously on an forum you have bigger issues to address, regardless of gender.
A few people have definitely used the situation to boost their ego's by convincing themselves they are part of a great moral crusade and all I can say is if you've that much spare energy and feel the need to make your mark then walk away from your keyboard and find some local charities to help.0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:
My opinion doesn't really matter and the silly thing is I don't really care what happens either. I can and do enjoy looking at pictures of particularly attractive women, but I also know there is an internet full of such pictures if I want them. I don't need to go into Cake Stop to get my fix and if they do end up being banned there then I will not really worry about it beyond thinking a bunch of lads who were just being lads have been tarred with a brush they didn't deserve. There are only really two reasons why I've been so verbal on this subject: 1. the sheer hypocrisy of DDD got right up my nose and 2. I found much of your particular argument to be offensive to ordinary, decent men. If you'd directed your criticism towards the "Women in realistic situations" thread I probably wouldn't have bothered to come out in support of you, but I certainly wouldn't have argued against you. To my mind, beyond a few childish accompanying comments, the rest of the "Girls in..." threads were born of harmless camaraderie between a bunch of male bike fans killing time together, and are not an indicator that they are misogynist degenerates just waiting until they can go and abuse some poor girl going about her business (nor do I think viewing such images breeds sexism). Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
Like I say, your argument, though I don't agree with it, I can respect because you truly feel passionate about it. It's those who have whined that they don't really like such pictures, yet have never contacted the mods about them, have never spend any meaningful time in Cake Stop (nor really wanted to), and have never tried to engage those who have posted such threads, that I feel are just being busybodies and spoilsports.
I agree with verylonglegs - thats the closest to my position. Well put.
All we need now are these rules, hehe
By accessing the Website and/or using the Website Service, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions (“Terms“) and our privacy policy. If you have any queries about the Website or these Terms, you can contact Us by any of the means set out in paragraph 16 of these Terms. If you do not agree with these Terms, you should leave the Website and stop using the Website Service immediately.
3. GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT: The Website Service is made available for your own, personal use. The Website Service must not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever or for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. When you use the Website Service you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online) and with any applicable international laws, including the local laws in your country of residence (together referred to as “Applicable Laws“).
4. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO THE WEBSITE: You are responsible for any information, data, text, music, software, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other content (“Content“) which you post or upload and/or display (in public or privately) to the Website. Future may (but shall not be obliged to) delete, edit, lock, move or remove any Content without notice and for any reason and/or to record the IP address from which any Content is posted, uploaded and/or displayed without notice and for any reason, including, without limitation, Content which, in our sole discretion, violates these Terms or is or may be irrelevant, out of date, inappropriate or objectionable in any way whatsoever, or in respect of which Future receives any complain (whether justified or not). By posting, uploading and/or displaying any Content to the Website you warrant that: (a) you own all intellectual property and proprietary rights in such Content or that you have a licence from the owner of such rights to post, upload and/or display such Content on the Website; and (b) the posting, uploading and/or displaying of such Content on the Website and the grant of the licence to Future and its group companies (on the terms set out below) will not infringe the intellectual property or proprietary rights of any third party.
If you upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content to the Website, you automatically: (a) grant other users of the Website and the Website Service the right to access the same and use it in accordance with these Terms, although you can mark Content as private and so restrict access and use to those users to whom you specifically grant access; and (b) grant Future and its group companies a non-exclusive, royalty free, sub-licensable, perpetual, world-wide licence to use, modify, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such Content on and through the Website and the Website Service and in any other form or medium. You continue to own the Content after it is posted to the Website.
You acknowledge that Future will not screen or otherwise check any Content which is submitted by you or any other user of the Website Service before it is posted, not monitor yours or any person’s use of the Website Service. As such, you as the user of the Website Service are responsible for any Content you submit to the Website and the manner in which the Website Service is used under your username. You may take down any Content you have submitted to the Website at any time. If you become aware of any misuse of the Website Service by any person including (without limitation) any posting of Content which violates these Terms, please contact us by following the instructions set out in paragraph 16 of these Terms or click on the “Report this” link at the bottom of the Website page or next to the Content which has been posted.
5. SPECIFIC RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT: You agree that when using the Website Service you will comply with all Applicable Laws (as defined in paragraph 3), these Terms and you acknowledge that you are responsible for all acts and omissions which occur under your user-name. In particular, but without limitation, you agree not to:
a. Upload, post or otherwise display Content which is or promotes behaviour which violates the rights (including, without limitation, the intellectual property rights) of a third party or which is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, flaming, hateful, offensive (whether in relation to sex, race, religion or otherwise) harassing, hateful, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another’s privacy, solicits personal information from anyone under the age of 18 years, or contains any illegal content; or
b. Upload, post or otherwise display any Content which contains software viruses or any other files or programs that may interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of the Website or the Website Service or any server or networks connected to the Website or another’s computer, or that contains any chain letters, pyramid-selling schemes, bulk mail, junk mail or similar; or
c. Upload, post or otherwise display any Content containing a photograph of another person unless you have obtained that person’s consent;
d. Harvest or collect any IP addresses or email addresses or other contact information of any members of the Website, by electronic means or otherwise; or
e. Upload, post or otherwise display any Content for any commercial or business purpose including (without limitation) any Content which contains any advertising or promotional materials; or
f. Restrict or in any way inhibit any other person’s use of the Website or the Website Service; or
g. Upload, post or otherwise display any Content which is false, misleading, un-necessary and/or repetitive including any Content which is inaccurate, out of date or repeats that previously uploaded, posted or displayed by you or another visitor, unless absolutely necessary; or
h. Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content to a part of the Website which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Content; or
i. Register an account with us under more than one user name and/or user account number; or
j. Use the Website or the Website Service in a manner that is inconsistent with these Terms and/or any Applicable Laws in force from time to time or in a manner which promotes or encourages illegal activity; or
k. Breach the terms of any suspension or ban or seek alternative access; or
l. In the interests of free speech, bring any action for defamation against Future, or any of the companies in the same group; or
m. Use or solicit any other account holder’s personal data for any purpose other than establishing non-commercial, lawful contact that such account holder would reasonably expect to welcome; or
n. Submit Content owned by a third party without consent from that third party or submit Content in a manner which expressly or impliedly infers that such Content is sponsored or endorsed by the Website; or
o. Use the Website in any unlawful manner or in a manner which promotes or encourages illegal activity or in a manner which could damage, disable, overburden or impair the Website or the Website Service; or
p. Attempt to gain unauthorised access to the Website or any networks, servers or computer systems connected to the Website; or
q. Modify, adapt, translate or reverse engineer any part of the Website or use any robot, spider, site search/retrieval application or other device to retrieve or index any part of the Website or re-format or frame any portion of the web pages comprising the Website, unless permitted by law; or
r. Remove or obstruct from view any advertisements and/or any copyright, trademark or other proprietary notices contained on or in the Website; or
s. Contact any other user of the Website if they have expressly asked you not to; or
t. Attempt to impersonate any other user or account holder of the Website or the Website Service; or
u. Use the username and/or password of any other account holder of the Website or disclose your password to any other person; or
v. Upload, post or otherwise display any Content comprising an advertisement or accept payment or anything of value from any person in exchange for you uploading, posting or displaying any Content or otherwise performing any commercial activity on or through the Website or the Website Service on behalf of such person (including, without limitation, posting blogs or bulletins for a commercial purpose and/or sending messages to other users of the Website with a commercial purpose).
You agree to indemnify Future and its group companies in full and on demand from and against any loss, damage, costs or expenses which they suffer or incur directly or indirectly as a result of your use of the Website and/or the Website Service, and any use of the same under your username other than in accordance with these Terms or Applicable Law.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
ddraver wrote:
So the Cake Stop makes you feel uncomfortable velocestrapture - I ve not seen you in the other 15 areas on the road forum either. Are you honestly saying that 3 or 4 threads keep you out of the whole road section?
I acknowledge that I am not one of the more regular posters on this site, but end up lurking and reading much more than I feel inclined to post. I frequent other forums than this, and whilst I am not a particularly prolific poster on those sites either, my lurking to posting ratio is more like 60/40 on the other sites, where as here it is more like 85/15. I have posted quite a few times in Road Beginners and S/A/TR. I have posted on a few topics in Cake Stop, but don't feel as inclined to lurk there as I do in Commuting Chat, so end up posting much more in the latter.0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though. As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.0 -
velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
Well worded and concise HS.
However, if we take the same logic, I'd like to suggest that as I have met a number of women who are royal pains in the ar*e, it's reasonable that the onus is on all other women to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different, and that they are worthy of more than the time of day.
Reasonable ? No ? didn't think so.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
MattC59 wrote:velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
Well worded and concise HS.
However, if we take the same logic, I'd like to suggest that as I have met a number of women who are royal pains in the ar*e, it's reasonable that the onus is on all other women to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different, and that they are worthy of more than the time of day.
Reasonable ? No ? didn't think so.
I'm not quite sure that I get your point - some women are not nice, therefore if you want to be considered to be nice, you have to be nice - sounds reasonable to me.
I think that you have a point if you take a specific example of some women seeming to be convinced that men are, for example, incapable of looking after their children properly, so will never leave him alone with them. I do think that it is incumbent upon women who do not believe that, who believe that men are just as capable of childcare as women, to make sure that they demonstrate that through their actions and through pulling other women up on it when they hear it. Incidentally, it will be the latter group that are more likely to call themselves feminists - which is one of the many reasons why feminism actually benefits both genders.0 -
ddraver wrote:If we all post "I HEREBY DECLARE I DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS OK TO BE ABUSIVE AGAINST WOMEN" can we look at our boobs again please?
Your boobs? I think that makes your declaration something of an oxymoron.0 -
velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though. As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.
Oh God I wrote a massive reply to this - some of it actually agreeing with you and talking about my personal experiences of this issue - that took about 40 minutes to construct and my feckin' BT connection just went down and it's all been lost! I'll maybe write it again later, or if you want to create that new thread I will relay it there.0 -
ddraver wrote:never let a good point stand in the way of pedantry eh? :roll:
It is nothing to do with pedantry. One of the complaints that is made about the dissemination of such images of women is that it depersonalises them, turns them from real people into a collection of sexual body parts, and creates a sense of public (male) ownership of women and their image.
You didn't say "can we look at pictures of women?"
You didn't say "can we look at pictures of women's boobs?"
You didn't even say "can we look at pictures of boobs?"
You said "can we look at our boobs".
If there is absolutely no part of you that sees women as sexual objects over which you have rights, why did you use that language? Why was there no point at which in your decision to make that post that you stopped and thought 'why am I implying collective ownership over the body parts of another human being?'.0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though. As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.
Oh God I wrote a massive reply to this - some of it actually agreeing with you and talking about my personal experiences of this issue - that took about 40 minutes to construct and my feckin' BT connection just went down and it's all been lost! I'll maybe write it again later, or if you want to create that new thread I will relay it there.
Bad luck! Do write again. I am interested to read opposing views, even if it is only to shore up weaknesses in my own argument! The ball is in your court about the new thread though. It would be good to see a man taking a positive step on this issue for once. 0 -
velocestrapture wrote:ddraver wrote:never let a good point stand in the way of pedantry eh? :roll:
It is nothing to do with pedantry. One of the complaints that is made about the dissemination of such images of women is that it depersonalises them, turns them from real people into a collection of sexual body parts, and creates a sense of public (male) ownership of women and their image.
You didn't say "can we look at pictures of women?"
You didn't say "can we look at pictures of women's boobs?"
You didn't even say "can we look at pictures of boobs?"
You said "can we look at our boobs".
If there is absolutely no part of you that sees women as sexual objects over which you have rights, why did you use that language? Why was there no point at which in your decision to make that post that you stopped and thought 'why am I implying collective ownership over the body parts of another human being?'.
A minute ago it meant I was looking at my books
Because I'm a geologist, not an English literature professor. I'm also struggling to take such an absurd situation seriously.
I'm also heartened that if you re picking apart my language, the actual arguments must be pretty strong.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:velocestrapture wrote:ddraver wrote:never let a good point stand in the way of pedantry eh? :roll:
It is nothing to do with pedantry. One of the complaints that is made about the dissemination of such images of women is that it depersonalises them, turns them from real people into a collection of sexual body parts, and creates a sense of public (male) ownership of women and their image.
You didn't say "can we look at pictures of women?"
You didn't say "can we look at pictures of women's boobs?"
You didn't even say "can we look at pictures of boobs?"
You said "can we look at our boobs".
If there is absolutely no part of you that sees women as sexual objects over which you have rights, why did you use that language? Why was there no point at which in your decision to make that post that you stopped and thought 'why am I implying collective ownership over the body parts of another human being?'.
A minute ago it meant I was looking at my books
Because I'm a geologist, not an English literature professor. I'm also struggling to take such an absurd situation seriously.
I'm also heartened that if you re picking apart my language, the actual arguments must be pretty strong.
Don't do yourself down. Even GCSE English Literature teaches you to look at the language that is used to see what it reveals about the intentions, assumptions and culture of its users.0 -
If I remember mine, one of the salient points was that there was an awful lot of interpretation rather than fact in doing that, and that most of the time one is sticking a finger in the wind and guessing. Blimy, look how many religious texts get abused to meet the interpreters aim...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:If I remember mine, one of the salient points was that there was an awful lot of interpretation rather than fact in doing that, and that most of the time one is sticking a finger in the wind and guessing. Blimy, look how many religious texts get abused to meet the interpreters aim...
So what other interpretation do you think it reveals?
I am struggling to see how anyone reading that would see that it demonstrates that there isn't at least a small part of your psyche, maybe your unconscious beliefs, that allows you to consider women in that way. If you met someone who professed themselves not to be in the slightest bit racist, but who occasionally referred to asian people as Pakis, would you not question why they were using that language?
As I said earlier. If you don't want people to think that you hold misogynistic views, take care that your words and actions can't be interpreted that way. Your persona is fixed by the way that people perceive you, more than by the way you perceive yourself.0 -
ddraver wrote:I suppose that accepting that the majority disagree with you and leaving it at that, and then just ignoring the threads, given that they re in an area you don't visit anyway, is not an option?
There's no evidence that I've seen that the majority of users disagree; more vocal, yes, but that's not the same thing.
I expect that the majority of users, like me, are sat on the periphery of this discussion, without voicing an opinion. Yes, that means, you can't complain if any discussion doesn't agree with your own thoughts, but we're potentially the bulk of users that will keep this site viable and silence can be implied to agree with either argument.
For my 2c, I don't want to see "Girls in" posts in any of the forum. This site is an extension of the magazine for me and, one or two ads (apparently) aside, it does't have a soft porn section; I don't see why the website needs one.Regards
Pip
Cube Agree GTC Pro
Boardman Hybrid Comp
Voodoo Bantu0 -
velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though. As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.
So, "guilty until proven innocent" and (more) massively sweeping generalisations in one sentence. Bravo.
And reading your subsequent posts (especially on subconscious ownership of boobs) just makes me think you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, and in fact the issue being examined here is just a very fortunately timed excuse for you to vent. Perhaps that is unfair, but since we're going by impressions gained on a web forum, that's the conclusion I've come to.0 -
iPip - there is a post in Cake Stop, you know, where the threads actually are, discussing this.* Thus far it is pro the threads, that's where that evidence came from.
(*although people are, understandably, trying to keep it in here)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Monkeypump wrote:velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though. As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.
So, "guilty until proven innocent" and (more) massively sweeping generalisations in one sentence. Bravo.
And reading your subsequent posts (especially on subconscious ownership of boobs) just makes me think you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, and in fact the issue being examined here is just a very fortunately timed excuse for you to vent. Perhaps that is unfair, but since we're going by impressions gained on a web forum, that's the conclusion I've come to.
Would you care to identify the sentence in which I have apparently made "massively sweeping generalisations", and put forward your opinion as to why you consider them to be "massively sweeping generalisations", instead of, er, making massively sweeping generalisations about my posts?
Also, any rational reason why using a possessive pronoun to describe something should be interpreted in any way apart from that the writer was implying ownership would be useful too.
I would also like to avoid making ad hominem attacks, but without any reasoned argument in your posts to counter, it is not easy.0 -
Yep, aware of that, but my point still stands. The fact that more people are posting in favour than against doesn't necessarily translate to a fair representation of users. It might, of course, but I expect it's skewed, by being in CS if nothing else.ddraver wrote:iPip - there is a post in Cake Stop, you know, where the threads actually are, discussing this.* Thus far it is pro the threads, that's where that evidence came from.
(*although people are, understandably, trying to keep it in here)Regards
Pip
Cube Agree GTC Pro
Boardman Hybrid Comp
Voodoo Bantu0 -
@iPip - Well...Ok....
so what hope have we got of ever sorting this out then?
@velocestrapture - pretty much all of the replies to me would be sweeping generalisations, further, they re wrong sweeping generalisationsWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:@iPip - Well...Ok....
so what hope have we got of ever sorting this out then?
@velocestrapture - pretty much all of the replies to me would be sweeping generalisations, further, they re wrong sweeping generalisations 0 -
Posted in the cake stop thread, but I'll repeat it here as well.Greg66 wrote:Even if that's true, so what? If he has a point, it hardly matters whether he came on it by accident or design.
And it's undeniable that there is a genuine point here, whatever your or my opinion on it may be.
Agreed, I've been posting in the discussion thread purely because that felt like the right place to post. However, I do feel that there's a problem, or I am certainly of the opinion that there is something wrong or not right with how the Girls in threads are being or have been being used.
There's a proliferation of them, its easy to ignore the subject matter if its in one thread, rather than 1/2 a dozen of them.
Because there's a few it does give to the casual observer that the point of cake stop is to post pics of girls. There is nothing wrong with that, I like looking at girls, and there's plenty of really attractive ones whose pic has been posted.
I used to look at the Girls in Lycra thread, I dont anymore, mainly because I didnt like the sort of pictures that were being posted in there.
I'm personally of the opinion that some of the subject matter has no place on a cycling forum. Yes I know this is the less cycling focused section of it, but it seems to have taken over. I'm not for one minute offended by it, far from it, but I was offered a chance by the moderator team to offer my opinion which is what I did. I'm not expecting anybody to agree with me and things to be suddenly changed just because I thought that it should be looked at.
There are people with strong opinion's on both sides and theres some people who probably dont care, there are some people who probably are not speaking up either because they don't care or can be bothered to get into an argument over it.
I've offered what I believe a workable solution, I'll repeat it.
1. All threads merged into one
2. No content that would not be suitable for pre-watershed viewing on main stream TV i.e .BBC1 is posted.
3. Girl or blokes should be covered up i.e. no nipple shots
4. The thread should be moderated and it made clear when an image has been removed and why
Now I believe that would work, it means that the threads can stay and the majority of the posted images would remain. But it would bring the tone of it back to something a little more appreciative of the female form. It also means its easier to ignore it all if its in one place. It also means there is room for other subject matter and it wont then give the impression that cake stops primary purpose is to post pics of girls.
There is still the issue of if something in the Magazine's that future owns is posted that breaks those guidelines what happens then. There is also the issue that there are different levels across the sections of the forum where some things are OK and other are not.
It would also seem to me that only one member of the moderator team actually gives a stuff and has put his head above the parapet and copped alot of flack, where the others either aren't interested or think its OK how it is, but simply are not commenting. Personally I'd like to hear the thoughts of more of the moderator team.
This could all be sorted by somebody either the site owner or a site admin / moderator having some balls and making a decision. Its going round and round because no decision is being made, which by default means the status quo remains.
The other option would be to delete all the threads and then start again, now the fact has been aired that some people arent happy with the content, perhaps the people using the thread will be aware of that and maybe not post some of the more controversial / or close to the line pictures.0 -
The problem with internet forums, is that people see them as a a place where they can p*ss, whine, argue and complain about things that don't interest them, don't effect them, don't really bother them and they don't contribute to.
I see a lot of that happening in this discussion.
Just saying.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
velocestrapture wrote:Monkeypump wrote:velocestrapture wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:
Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).
I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though. As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.
I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.
So, "guilty until proven innocent" and (more) massively sweeping generalisations in one sentence. Bravo.
And reading your subsequent posts (especially on subconscious ownership of boobs) just makes me think you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, and in fact the issue being examined here is just a very fortunately timed excuse for you to vent. Perhaps that is unfair, but since we're going by impressions gained on a web forum, that's the conclusion I've come to.
Would you care to identify the sentence in which I have apparently made "massively sweeping generalisations", and put forward your opinion as to why you consider them to be "massively sweeping generalisations", instead of, er, making massively sweeping generalisations about my posts?
Also, any rational reason why using a possessive pronoun to describe something should be interpreted in any way apart from that the writer was implying ownership would be useful too.
I would also like to avoid making ad hominem attacks, but without any reasoned argument in your posts to counter, it is not easy.
After reading all of your contributions to this thread, my opinion is that you are unfairly generalising about the collective male attitude on the GiL/etc threads. It's insulting to the majority, even if it's accurate for the minority.
You have an almost militant attitude and demand that we accept your POV, because as males we can't possibly understand what it's like to feel unwelcome here, and therefore as a woman who does feel unwelcome you must be correct in your assessment of our misogynistic motivations to keep this as a boys club.
As a self confessed lurker rather than poster, it's impossible to know how much of the other content you read. However, I find it difficult to believe you have made any effort to make a balanced judgement of other members. This just makes your judgemental comments even more insulting.
Feel free to continue the personal attacks as you see fit. I'm not trying to trade points with you. It is simply my opinion that the more you labour the point, the more you make assumptions, the less seriously I can take you. Pedantry isn't helping your cause either.0 -
You're right. The problem being that when a genuine discussion does get debated, too many people are quick to dismiss contrary views as trolling.MattC59 wrote:The problem with internet forums, is that people see them as a a place where they can wee-wee, whine, argue and complain about things that don't interest them, don't effect them, don't really bother them and they don't contribute to.
I see a lot of that happening in this discussion.
Just saying.
However, that's irrelevant really as it makes no difference to what's being discussed currently. The only way this will be resolved is for BR to make a decision and then everyone can decide how/if they continue to use the site.Regards
Pip
Cube Agree GTC Pro
Boardman Hybrid Comp
Voodoo Bantu0 -
iPip wrote:
You're right. The problem being that when a genuine discussion does get debated, too many people are quick to dismiss contrary views as trolling.MattC59 wrote:The problem with internet forums, is that people see them as a a place where they can wee-wee, whine, argue and complain about things that don't interest them, don't effect them, don't really bother them and they don't contribute to.
I see a lot of that happening in this discussion.
Just saying.
However, that's irrelevant really as it makes no difference to what's being discussed currently. The only way this will be resolved is for BR to make a decision and then everyone can decide how/if they continue to use the site.
I think the main problem is that people get caught up in arguing, don't like having their point of view questioned, corrected or dismissed, and the subject in question becomes secondary. As the discussion goes on, the views become more militant and the original subject just becomes an excuse to keep p*ssing, whining and arguing.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0
This discussion has been closed.
