Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation

DonDaddyD

To recap...

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK here goes:

JT wrote:

The soapbox was your first post on this subject and the above are confessions you have made in retrospect of being rumbled. It reminds me a little of one of those evangelical preachers who, having been caught with their whatsits in the choir girl's mouth go on to publicly confess their sins and thinks that gives them the right to be righteous again.

Have you got any evidence that proves that I ever denied posting inappropriately or participated in the 'Girls in...' threads?

I've asked the question repeatedly and you keep regurgitating the same erroneous claim without actually answering the question. And you have done as I said you would, find another means of attack and stupidly entrench yourself in desperation of trying to prove that you are right.

Incidentally this post was made on the 29 Feb and was without prompting.

I previously wrote:

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12839076&start=60
The pictures do objectify women, they aren't welcoming to women and the comments compound on these things. Have I posted in those threads? Yes. Do I laugh? Yes. But I don't for one second ignore what they are or the negative effect on the website

And no that doesn't make me a good person.

Very first time I was asked whether I have contributed in the 'Girls in...' thread again on the 29th Feb. This is on page 5, the thread was made on the 28th Feb.

I previously wrote:

Many times, yes. I posted pictures of Liz Hatch and Lizzie Armistead.

So tell me, using an example that predates these two posts, where I have denied ever previously contributing to the problem?

I'm still awaiting a response.

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

There really isn't any evidence needed,anyone who thinks for themselves will see the true reason for the existance of this thread and the previous. It's all here and it's not because of Girls in _threads.

So you don't have any evidence do you? Where is it. Show us.

Bottomline do you or do you not have any evidence alluding to this "wrist slapping" claim?

I'm still awaiting a response.

Or are we going to have to go through another few pages before you two grow a mature pair and admit that you may have been wrong.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

To recap...

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK here goes:

JT wrote:

The soapbox was your first post on this subject and the above are confessions you have made in retrospect of being rumbled. It reminds me a little of one of those evangelical preachers who, having been caught with their whatsits in the choir girl's mouth go on to publicly confess their sins and thinks that gives them the right to be righteous again.

Have you got any evidence that proves that I ever denied posting inappropriately or participated in the 'Girls in...' threads?

I've asked the question repeatedly and you keep regurgitating the same erroneous claim without actually answering the question. And you have done as I said you would, find another means of attack and stupidly entrench yourself in desperation of trying to prove that you are right.

Incidentally this post was made on the 29 Feb and was without prompting.

I previously wrote:

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12839076&start=60
The pictures do objectify women, they aren't welcoming to women and the comments compound on these things. Have I posted in those threads? Yes. Do I laugh? Yes. But I don't for one second ignore what they are or the negative effect on the website

And no that doesn't make me a good person.

Very first time I was asked whether I have contributed in the 'Girls in...' thread again on the 29th Feb. This is on page 5, the thread was made on the 28th Feb.

I previously wrote:

Many times, yes. I posted pictures of Liz Hatch and Lizzie Armistead.

So tell me, using an example that predates these two posts, where I have denied ever previously contributing to the problem?

I'm still awaiting a response.

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

There really isn't any evidence needed,anyone who thinks for themselves will see the true reason for the existance of this thread and the previous. It's all here and it's not because of Girls in _threads.

So you don't have any evidence do you? Where is it. Show us.

Bottomline do you or do you not have any evidence alluding to this "wrist slapping" claim?

I'm still awaiting a response.

Or are we going to have to go through another few pages before you two grow a mature pair and admit that you may have been wrong.

You just don't get it.

mattshrops

DDD If you ignore the squabbles since and look at your original post it does look(to me) like youre saying something like waa waa mama its not fair.
Secondly and more importantly if you do actually care about this subject then the discussion would be best served by you stopping posting and let some others give their opinion. I reckon about 20 forum users have so far contributed - shouldnt we be getting a larger cross section?
From your previous posts i guess you will have to respond to my opening "insult" - wasnt intended as a personal attack - really go back and read your first post on the subject.

finchy

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

its just some of the way you explain your points of view seems very naive and immature - but i guess thats the internets and limited tim to type things.

I mean I know what you're saying, and its clear that you mean well but this

"I would step in if I thought that they were not able to deal with the problem themselves. The reason it is particularly important to tackle discrimination for reason of an innate characteristic is that the discrimination usually results from a power imbalance. It is particularly incumbent on us to step in where we are part of the group with the power. That is why racism is not just an issue for black people to tackle, and homophobia is not just an issue for gay people"

sounds really really patronising and sounds like its something you've read rather than experienced. For example the 'power balance' that I can see in that post, which probably you're unaware of (like I say I undrstand what you're saying) - is that you compartmentalize and segregate as much as any'homophobe' or 'racist' - for example, who is the 'us' in 'its incumbent upon us'. It just strikes me that thats a worse form of discrimination. Anyway I'm off to save new york in battlefield 3.

Hmm, a very interesting post which leaves me asking myself one question: Why would anyone bother saving NYC?

Mrs Toast

I have to admit, I tend to frequent other mountain biking forums a lot more than Bike Radar, because Bike Radar has more of a Nuts/Zoo kind of atmosphere. I only tend to go in the Women’s, Routes and Mountain Biking General forums – I rarely venture into the off-topic forums because all the “Hurr hurr, fit birds, what’s wrong with being sexy” threads slams home the message that it’s not really the place for me. I have enough of sexist trolls in video gaming and hell, walking around town, so I’d rather avoid places that encourage and endorse it in mountain biking as well. Just my opinion, mind.

Monkeypump

Mrs Toast wrote:

I have to admit, I tend to frequent other mountain biking forums a lot more than Bike Radar, because Bike Radar has more of a Nuts/Zoo kind of atmosphere. I only tend to go in the Women’s, Routes and Mountain Biking General forums – I rarely venture into the off-topic forums because all the “Hurr hurr, fit birds, what’s wrong with being sexy” threads slams home the message that it’s not really the place for me. I have enough of sexist trolls in video gaming and hell, walking around town, so I’d rather avoid places that encourage and endorse it in mountain biking as well. Just my opinion, mind.

You're neither boy or girl... you're one of those... those... GAMERS!

velocestrapture

So, Mods, what's the news? Are the business owners prepared to take seriously the views of the women and men who have posted on here to say they don't think these threads are appropriate content for a cycling magazine, or are they just going to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away?

Monkeypump

velocestrapture wrote:

So, Mods, what's the news? Are the business owners prepared to take seriously the views of everyone who has been involved in this discussion, and take a balanced view on appropriate content for a web forum where grown-ups don't need to be treated like 5-year-olds?

FTFY - come on, you should know better than that! If you want to be treated fairly, show others the same courtesy.

Anyway, now that most of us are just waiting for a decision, it's time to break out the popcorn and watch DDD et al squabbling.

Holyzeus

velocestrapture wrote:

So, Mods, what's the news? Are the business owners prepared to take seriously the views of the women and men who have posted on here to say they don't think these threads are appropriate content for a cycling magazine, or are they just going to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away?

Funny, i get the impression more are for rather than against but full marks for trying to get the last biased word in

Mrs Toast

Holyzeus wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

So, Mods, what's the news? Are the business owners prepared to take seriously the views of the women and men who have posted on here to say they don't think these threads are appropriate content for a cycling magazine, or are they just going to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away?

Funny, i get the impression more are for rather than against but full marks for trying to get the last biased word in

It's kind of a vicious circle though, isn't it? If a site, through accident or design, promotes and encourages an atmosphere that's alienating to a broader audience, then if the status quo is challenged then a lot of the existing users that appreciate that kind of content are going to object. There aren't going to be as many dissenting voices, because the people who don't like the tone of the site will have voted with their feet (well, keyboards) and gone elsewhere. Then it'll seem that the majority don't want change, then nothing will change, and then that will be that - your core audience is please, but you'll struggle to grow your numbers past a certain point.

It all depends on what Future Publishing are trying to achieve, really - do they want a forum that is welcoming to anyone, regardless of gender, orientation, race and religion, or do they want to continue to focus on a narrower demographic. The downside of going for the broader audience is that it does require more moderation (which is a nightmare), and you possibly risk alienating your 'core' audience if changes are brought in too suddenly, or too heavy handedly.

rideslikeagirl

IF you boys have finished your little spat and we can get back to the subject (i couldn't be bothered to read all the arguing) Maybe having a read of

http://storify.com/dawnhfoster/street-harassment-101?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150655606944291_21711468_10150655871944291

might give the boys complaining about the possibility of not being allowed to go 'waaargghh!!' at what they charmingly refer to as 'norks', a bit of perspective... Maybe you can see why women might not have a sense of humour over the whole sorry business, i'm sure most of the blokes involved in the incidents in that thread thought it was just a bit of harmless fun too...

jonny_trousers

rideslikeagirl wrote:

IF you boys have finished your little spat and we can get back to the subject (i couldn't be bothered to read all the arguing) Maybe having a read of

http://storify.com/dawnhfoster/street-harassment-101?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150655606944291_21711468_10150655871944291

might give the boys complaining about the possibility of not being allowed to go 'waaargghh!!' at what they charmingly refer to as 'norks', a bit of perspective... Maybe you can see why women might not have a sense of humour over the whole sorry business, i'm sure most of the blokes involved in the incidents in that thread thought it was just a bit of harmless fun too...

All experiences in that link are examples of completely unacceptable behaviour and I think it is right that they need to be addressed. I still maintain it is unfair to equate what those women have been through with a bunch of men sharing pictures of hot models. It's a little like saying the, "My husband's so useless he falls asleep on the job," banter you regularly hear on Loose Women with female upon male spousal abuse. That said, I've actually had a change of heart on this issue simply because of the perfectly reasonable arguments the female members have put forward here and I think a carefully watched over "lads' area" is the way forwards. I know that many of you will understandably believe that there is no need even for that, but it will perhaps make Cake Stop more female friendly and thoroughly decent men do like discussing pretty girls together without meaning any harm. In the same way as you wouldn't boycott WH Smith because they sell copies of FHM and Nuts (although I think you should be more concerned about the "Ergh! Look at how much cellulite celeb X has" headlines of the likes of Heat, but anyway...) it might be an acceptable compromise for all.

rideslikeagirl

Its not the same but it *feels* the same. Maybe its a continuum. Going 'waaargh' at 'norks' on the internet is one thing, but its a sliding scale from doing it on the street, and that's a sliding scale from groping.

Yes it is.

And the question is, how am i supposed to know the difference? OK, i'm unlikely to get groped on an internet forum but if i saw one of the cakecatchers on the street, how am i to know his 'wargh's are only virtual? Think about what its like as a cyclist when some clarksonoid starts going on about road tax or red lights or how it would be hilarious to run the bloody cyclists over. How much does your blood boil? Same shit, over and over again, and it might just be yelling this time, but it only takes that one time it isn't.

The pictures aren't offensive in themselves, crass yes, but not generally 'porn', although some are pushing it. The comments and captions often are. They're the problem, and they indicate the attitude.

And for the record (waaay back in the thread somewhere), T3 is tacky and sexist and crass as hell too. What is this, the 70s?

Kaise

are you lot still banging on about this, go back to reading the daily mail and give it a rest.

Men like boobs, Women like six packs and stubble - who knew!

jeez, if you don't like the girls in thread, don't click them, the same way i don't click on the commuter section - AT ALL

mattshrops

rideslikeagirl wrote:

IF you boys have finished your little spat and we can get back to the subject (i couldn't be bothered to read all the arguing) Maybe having a read of

http://storify.com/dawnhfoster/street-harassment-101?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150655606944291_21711468_10150655871944291

might give the boys complaining about the possibility of not being allowed to go 'waaargghh!!' at what they charmingly refer to as 'norks', a bit of perspective... Maybe you can see why women might not have a sense of humour over the whole sorry business, i'm sure most of the blokes involved in the incidents in that thread thought it was just a bit of harmless fun too...

That- is very sobering indeed. Shocking actually.And as the boys on cake stop will tell you they are not doing THAT. ...but you have to say it is an extension of the same mindset and you can see how treating another person as "it" or "that" or "norks" etc is a step on that road.

ddraver

mattshrops wrote:

rideslikeagirl wrote:

IF you boys have finished your little spat and we can get back to the subject (i couldn't be bothered to read all the arguing) Maybe having a read of

http://storify.com/dawnhfoster/street-harassment-101?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150655606944291_21711468_10150655871944291

might give the boys complaining about the possibility of not being allowed to go 'waaargghh!!' at what they charmingly refer to as 'norks', a bit of perspective... Maybe you can see why women might not have a sense of humour over the whole sorry business, i'm sure most of the blokes involved in the incidents in that thread thought it was just a bit of harmless fun too...

That- is very sobering indeed. Shocking actually.And as the boys on cake stop will tell you they are not doing THAT. ...but you have to say it is an extension of the same mindset and you can see how treating another person as "it" or "that" or "norks" etc is a step on that road.

First of I totally agree it's shocking, I would never do that nor would I have any friends that do that. I can also see that it is on a sliding scale with the GiL threads. However, I have been beaten up when I was young and out on the town. Now that is a sliding scale with having rugby or boxing on the TV, or films with Hollywood fight scenes in them.

I had fantastic fun and made some fantastic friends playing rugby when I was younger, there was a program on BBC this morning about 2 girls that were cripplingly shy who took up boxing and are now infinitely happier (not to mention pretty good at it). Almost everything in the world is on a sliding scale with something is bad? I do my best to ride my bike considerably and carefully but some idiots use it as a licence to be a pillock. Should we ban cycling because of those pillocks? Harold Shipman murdered old ladies for the feel of godlike power, re we going to ban GP's? Of course not! What are we going to do with our lives if we can't do anything that somebody, somewhere will use badly?

verylonglegs

I see this thread has reached tabloid levels of hysteria and is now taking the same theoretical argument that violent films and video games makes everyone become a cold-blooded killer in real life. Cracking stuff.

rideslikeagirl

So, this is ok then? Harmless fun?

blade8 wrote:

shedhead wrote:

Holyzeus wrote:

Wow, you could stick her in "redheads" too

Or you could stick a red head in her !

We're not talking banning gp's here, thats a deliberately ridiculous straw man. We're talking that kind of speech up there, copied from the 'girls in knitwear' thread is really not that very far away with some random guy grabbing his crotch and going 'rargh get somma this darlin'. It's 'harmless fun' until someone gets hurt. Well, guess what, this kind of pathetic crap hurts people. I really can't see how it can be defended, at least in an environment where showing a picture of a woman with her hand on her genitals is ok, but using a colloquialism for those same genitals isn't. That was, after all, the original complaint.

Cleat Eastwood

rideslikeagirl wrote:

copied from the 'girls in knitwear' thread is really not that very far away with some random guy grabbing his crotch and going 'rargh get somma this darlin'. .

it's miles away.

ddraver

Is it a straw man because it shows how fallible your argument is? You ve gone into a light hearted thread deliberately to look for anything to be offended by and, congratulations, you found something.

It's not funny but there is clearly a difference between making a joke (indicated by the smiley) about a picture and saying it to a total stranger. Just because is on they re on a scale, it does nt mean the entire scale should be damned into perpetuity.

Holyzeus

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

rideslikeagirl wrote:

copied from the 'girls in knitwear' thread is really not that very far away with some random guy grabbing his crotch and going 'rargh get somma this darlin'. .

it's miles away.

A million in fact

Pseudonym

Holyzeus wrote:

A million in fact

how have you measured that..?

Holyzeus

Pseudonym wrote:

Holyzeus wrote:

A million in fact

how have you measured that..?

:roll:

Pseudonym

Holyzeus wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

Holyzeus wrote:

A million in fact

how have you measured that..?

:roll:

good answer - about as meaningless as the first one.....approximately....

Holyzeus

I don't need to answer it, your question doesn't warrant my time

RonB

Comments like the "red head" one above need to be arbitrated and if you are offended then report it. That has always been the system I think.

Could we have a decision please mod folks?

Pseudonym

Holyzeus wrote:

I don't need to answer it, your question doesn't warrant my time

hmm, how long did that reply take you....?

velocestrapture

To those who doubt that the pictures and comments on the "Girls in..." threads are not on a continuum with the sort of street harassment that rideslikeagirl has highlighted, please can you honestly consider and answer these questions?:

1. Would you consider it acceptable to tell a woman (whom you don't know) in the street that "you would like to stick one in her"?

2.Would you consider it acceptable if you weren't sure whether or not she could hear you?

3. Would you consider it acceptable if she couldn't hear what you were saying but she knew that you were talking about her?

4. Would you consider it acceptable to post pictures (without express consent) of women you knew and make a comment that "you would like to stick one in her"?

5. Would it be acceptable to post a picture of a woman in your cycling club and make a comment that "you would like to stick one in her"?

6. Would it be acceptable to post a picture of a woman in your cycling club and make a comment that "you would like to stick one in her" if you knew that she might use Bikeradar?

7. Would you consider it acceptable to comment on a picture "you would like to stick one in her" if you knew that the picture was of a sister, girlfriend, or daughter of someone you knew posted on Bikeradar?

The comment and attitude behind it doesn't change in any of these scenarios. Most decent men seem to realise that it is pretty offensive to say things like that to women (outside of an intimate relationship of course), and will understand her feelings of hurt and upset if she does hear it. But somehow, it is not considered to be offensive to publicly express such comments if the woman doesn't know about it and you don't know her. Whilst it seems obvious that it is not acceptable to express such attitudes about some women, it is seen as acceptable to express them about others. The difference between the former and the latter is that you are not confronted with the latter as being human beings deserving of respect. They have become an object.

The sad thing is that there are a significant number of men who don't seem to realise when it is 'acceptable' to objectify a woman and, like the "Girls in .." threads have shown, will get carried away and push the boundaries from aesthetic admiration to making sexualised comments. Is it any wonder why women would really like it if they weren't objectified at all?

RonB

Continuum...would suggest a natural, maybe an inevitable progression of behaviour, so I don't identify with that pronouncement at all. I am not trying to be flippant, but many of the images in question are thoroughly posed by models who could be in no doubt of the intended outcome of their (ahem) composition. Do they need some sort of salvation from themselves? Or pity?

rideslikeagirl

RonB wrote:

Continuum...would suggest a natural, maybe an inevitable progression of behaviour, so I don't identify with that pronouncement at all. I am not trying to be flippant, but many of the images in question are thoroughly posed by models who could be in no doubt of the intended outcome of their (ahem) composition. Do they need some sort of salvation from themselves? Or pity?

Not in the slightest, but ultimately it depends whether this is a cycling website or nuts.com. I wouldn't go anywhere near a 'lads mag' site, but i come here to read and talk about bikes, not look at comments about 'norks' (for some reason that word has really got to me) and how some random person wants to stick his dick in someone. And yeah, it didn't take long to find something offensive on that thread, because its an inherently offensive, crass, and objectifying thread.