BC and the Worlds

andy_wrx

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

#Letfemalesride

Women, please.

They are not 'females', they are women.

(and they are not 'ladies' either, as that's hugely sexist and patronising)

Bizzare post.

What is so difficult for you to understand :?:

Do we talk about 'males racing' ?
- no, we talk about 'men's racing'

And do we have races for 'gentlemen' ?
- no, so why 'ladies' ?

The_Boy

TailWindHome wrote:

Ireland aren't entering the girl's race either.
And only taking 1 of the 2 men's TT places on offer.

Say what?

The_Boy

It does seem bizarre, though, to refuse to send any entrants because they don't have a chance of winning.

Will Wiggins be the only Brit to be entered into the Men's TT at the Worlds? Cos there sure as hell isn't anyone else I can think of who is going to get near the podium, nevermind the rainbow stripes.

Macaloon

BC managed ZERO finishers out of 61 in the 2013 men's road race.
http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/World_Championships_Road_Race_2013
The malingerer Voeckler was 61st in a group of 3 (including Wilco) at +15:11.

Disgrace.

RichN95.

The_Boy wrote:

Will Wiggins be the only Brit to be entered into the Men's TT at the Worlds? Cos there sure as hell isn't anyone else I can think of who is going to get near the podium, nevermind the rainbow stripes.

Alex Dowsett. Commonwealth Champion, Giro TT winner. He may not get on the podium but he's not a makeweight either.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Will Wiggins be the only Brit to be entered into the Men's TT at the Worlds? Cos there sure as hell isn't anyone else I can think of who is going to get near the podium, nevermind the rainbow stripes.

Alex Dowsett. Commonwealth Champion, Giro TT winner. He may not get on the podium but he's not a makeweight either.

Didn't say he was a makeweight. I said he has no chance of winning, which I maintain.

I'm not trying to cast aspersion against any of the men or suggest they shouldn't be there, I'm using them as a counterpoint to highlight the logical inconsistency of the BC position re: sending no entrants to the women's event. If the genuinely wish to put their resources solely into athletes who have a chance of winning, then Wiggins will be the sole representative, surely? Why send Dowsett just to finish in the top-10.

edit: I suppose you could accuse me of using reductio ad absurdum, but on this occasion I think it stands.

PuttyKnees

It's not really BC that's institutionally sexist, it's the whole of cycling. At every single level you meet ostensibly good people who have a blind spot. Women have to fight for everything and inevitably that leads to some being labelled difficult. Or at youth level, their parents being labelled 'those kind of parents'. Probably the only area where there is a different attitude is in mountain biking, where generally the women/juniors are so far ahead of their male compatriots as a cohort that they cannot be ignored.

Anonymous

Both the Yates are in the team so where does the issue of them not being in it come from?

frenchfighter

andy_wrx wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

#Letfemalesride

Women, please.

They are not 'females', they are women.

(and they are not 'ladies' either, as that's hugely sexist and patronising)

Bizzare post.

What is so difficult for you to understand :?:

Do we talk about 'males racing' ?
- no, we talk about 'men's racing'

And do we have races for 'gentlemen' ?
- no, so why 'ladies' ?

I see your point of grammar yet fail to believe women would consider it sexist. In truth they prefer to be called a lady - it has connotations of class and is assumed to be used for those who are younger (compared to usage of 'woman'). Ladette however is not good.

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

#Letfemalesride

Women, please.

They are not 'females', they are women.

(and they are not 'ladies' either, as that's hugely sexist and patronising)

Bizzare post.

What is so difficult for you to understand :?:

Do we talk about 'males racing' ?
- no, we talk about 'men's racing'

And do we have races for 'gentlemen' ?
- no, so why 'ladies' ?

I see your point of grammar yet fail to believe women would consider it sexist. In truth they prefer to be called a lady - it has connotations of class and is assumed to be used for those who are younger (compared to usage of 'woman'). Ladette however is not good.

Good we've got you to tell us what the "ladies" like FF. The ladies from "Ladies' Lib" Will no doubt be please you spoke up in their behalf. They're far too demure and ladylike to make a fuss about a little thing like semantics.

The_Boy

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

#Letfemalesride

Women, please.

They are not 'females', they are women.

(and they are not 'ladies' either, as that's hugely sexist and patronising)

Bizzare post.

What is so difficult for you to understand :?:

Do we talk about 'males racing' ?
- no, we talk about 'men's racing'

And do we have races for 'gentlemen' ?
- no, so why 'ladies' ?

I see your point of grammar yet fail to believe women would consider it sexist. In truth they prefer to be called a lady - it has connotations of class and is assumed to be used for those who are younger (compared to usage of 'woman'). Ladette however is not good.

No. Just, no.

Anonymous

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

#Letfemalesride

Women, please.

They are not 'females', they are women.

(and they are not 'ladies' either, as that's hugely sexist and patronising)

Bizzare post.

What is so difficult for you to understand :?:

Do we talk about 'males racing' ?
- no, we talk about 'men's racing'

And do we have races for 'gentlemen' ?
- no, so why 'ladies' ?

I see your point of grammar yet fail to believe women would consider it sexist. In truth they prefer to be called a lady - it has connotations of class and is assumed to be used for those who are younger (compared to usage of 'woman'). Ladette however is not good.

Jesus. You are something else. Next you'll be telling us they like it when you squeeze their bums in work.

Coriander

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

#Letfemalesride

Women, please.

They are not 'females', they are women.

(and they are not 'ladies' either, as that's hugely sexist and patronising)

Bizzare post.

What is so difficult for you to understand :?:

Do we talk about 'males racing' ?
- no, we talk about 'men's racing'

And do we have races for 'gentlemen' ?
- no, so why 'ladies' ?

I see your point of grammar yet fail to believe women would consider it sexist. In truth they prefer to be called a lady - it has connotations of class and is assumed to be used for those who are younger (compared to usage of 'woman'). Ladette however is not good.

I do consider it sexist and most certainly do not prefer to be called a lady. I also hate the word ladies being applied generally as a synonym for women. It's naff, condescending and patronising. It contains an element of judgement, whether or not the speaker intends that judgement to be positive or negative. The point is that women are constantly judged, they rarely can just be, and 'lady' continues that judgement. Man/men is a neutral word that contains no judgement other than narrowing down people by their sex. Woman/women is the same. Lady is not.

Basically, in my view, if you wouldn't use the word 'gentleman' in exactly the same context, do not use the word 'lady'.

Also, for me, calling a woman a lady ages her (and the speaker) rather than indicates she's younger. It's just naff, in every way possible.

Coach H

IMHO people should have better things to do than get all hot under the collar about the use of common gender descriptors in conversational situations.

Only this week in a group setting I witnessed a Homo Sapien Female get all offended when they believed they had been addressed as 'me duck'. The fact that the speaker calls everyone 'me duck' (which I gather is the equivalent of the more popular 'mate' in the part of the country where they grew up) and was in fact speaking to a Homo Sapien Male got her even more stroppy when she felt embarrassed at her mistake :roll:

I don't get it, I really dont

The_Boy

Nice bit of mansplaining there, coach.

RichN95.

Coriander wrote:

I do consider it sexist and most certainly do not prefer to be called a lady. I also hate the word ladies being applied generally as a synonym for women. It's naff, condescending and patronising. It contains an element of judgement, whether or not the speaker intends that judgement to be positive or negative. The point is that women are constantly judged, they rarely can just be, and 'lady' continues that judgement. Man/men is a neutral word that contains no judgement other than narrowing down people by their sex. Woman/women is the same. Lady is not.

Basically, in my view, if you wouldn't use the word 'gentleman' in exactly the same context, do not use the word 'lady'.

Also, for me, calling a woman a lady ages her (and the speaker) rather than indicates she's younger. It's just naff, in every way possible.

I play hockey. The vast majority ofwomen's hockey clubs that distinguish their gender in the club name use 'Ladies' rather than 'Women's'. These are clubs run by women for women. If they were insulted by the word as you are then I'm sure at least a few of them would have changed.

Coriander

RichN95 wrote:

Coriander wrote:

I do consider it sexist and most certainly do not prefer to be called a lady. I also hate the word ladies being applied generally as a synonym for women. It's naff, condescending and patronising. It contains an element of judgement, whether or not the speaker intends that judgement to be positive or negative. The point is that women are constantly judged, they rarely can just be, and 'lady' continues that judgement. Man/men is a neutral word that contains no judgement other than narrowing down people by their sex. Woman/women is the same. Lady is not.

Basically, in my view, if you wouldn't use the word 'gentleman' in exactly the same context, do not use the word 'lady'.

Also, for me, calling a woman a lady ages her (and the speaker) rather than indicates she's younger. It's just naff, in every way possible.

I play hockey. The vast majority ofwomen's hockey clubs that distinguish their gender in the club name use 'Ladies' rather than 'Women's'. These are clubs run by women for women. If they were insulted by the word as you are then I'm sure at least a few of them would have changed.

Thanks for that, I'll stick with my view, however. I do get the historical use, times change though. I'd never not play a sport because of it, but I would ask for the change to made.

Coach H

The_Boy wrote:

Nice bit of mansplaining there, coach.

You are obviously assuming I am a man?
I am but does that really matter? A Homo Sapien Female of my acquaintance calls me 'darlin'' all the time, should I be offended? Surely it works both ways in the age of equality. Hope not, as my previous post.

tailwindhome

Coriander wrote:

Woman/women is the same. Lady is not.

I think you may think differently if you heard it pronounced in an Northern Ireland accent

Sound's more like Weemin.

tailwindhome

sjmclean wrote:

Jesus. You are something else. Next you'll be telling us they like it when you squeeze their bums in work.

They don't?
Sheesh.

Pross

This has gone slighting off topic :shock: My tuppence, a few weeks ago my singing group had a stand in MD and at one point he was trying to get the attention of our female singers and said 'ladies'. He then said 'ooh, is it OK to say that?' to which the response was unanimously 'yes, it's better than being called women'. I guess it just goes to show that not everyone of the same gender shares the same opinion - I bet that comes as a shock!

me-109

But had that been a group of men he would most likely have used the phrase "Gents!" to get their attention, which aligns with the earlier post regarding usage. I would have used 'ladies/gents' in that situation, not 'men/women/oi!'. I'm also of an age where the alternative 'guys' is not appropriate as I still see that as gender-specific, not this modern anything-goes usage where women are guys too. :shock:

deejay

.
Please do not forget the backbone of this country "The Womens Institute" (WI) who I'm led to believe address their group as "Ladies"

Said he.
.

Pross

I'm assuming everyone is agreed that Burds isn't acceptable (unless we've gone back to the 70s)?

Macaloon

A lot of you lads need to watch this and substitute male for white: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg48ZZ2wYfM
Warning: Fruity language.

My teenage daughter would rip y'all fresh ones.

Coach H

Macaloon wrote:

A lot of you lads need to watch this and substitute male for white: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg48ZZ2wYfM
Warning: Fruity language.

My teenage daughter would rip y'all fresh ones.

Lad
n.
c.1300, ladde "foot soldier," also "young male servant" (attested as a surname from late 12c.), possibly from a Scandinavian language (cf. Norwegian -ladd, in compounds for "young man"), but of obscure origin in any case. OED hazards a guess on Middle English ladde, plural of the past participle of lead (v.), thus "one who is led" (by a lord). Liberman derives it from Old Norse ladd "hose; woolen stocking." "The development must have been from 'stocking,' 'foolish youth' to 'youngster of inferior status' and (with an ameliorated meaning) to 'young fellow.'" He adds, "Words for socks, stockings, and shoes seem to have been current as terms of abuse for and nicknames of fools." Meaning "boy, youth, young man" is from mid-15c. Scottish form laddie, a term of endearment, attested from 1540s.

Again, should I be offended?

dish_dash

Me-109 wrote:

I'm also of an age where the alternative 'guys' is not appropriate as I still see that as gender-specific, not this modern anything-goes usage where women are guys too. :shock:

What's wrong with folks? Nice and gender neutral...

The_Boy

Coach H wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Nice bit of mansplaining there, coach.

You are obviously assuming I am a man?
I am but does that really matter? A Homo Sapien Female of my acquaintance calls me 'darlin'' all the time, should I be offended? Surely it works both ways in the age of equality. Hope not, as my previous post.

Which equality would that be? And you can feel offended if you at a colleague calling you darling if you like. There isn't any should about it. And your being a man doesn't matter until you start telling women how they should feel, at which point it very much does.

This is all getting very much off-topic, but I'm not happy seeing women told how they should or shouldn't react to the use of a word that many have issues with. It's not really difficult to get one's head around.

Macaloon

Coach H wrote:

Again, should I be offended?

I hope not. But it should be pretty difficult to insult (however unintentionally) males since none of the words are really labels.

Coach H

The_Boy wrote:

This is all getting very much off-topic, but I'm not happy seeing women told how they should or shouldn't react to the use of a word that many have issues with. It's not really difficult to get one's head around.

Thing is I'm not happy seeing women telling men that they cannot use a word that many don't have any issues with. Equally, I'm not happy seeing men telling women they cannot use a word that many don't have issues with.

Modifying any behaviour to account for the opinions/perceived opinions of the vast MINORITY is not progress unless the minority opinion is deeply insightful and brilliant original thought. This is not one of those circumstances therefore BC have 8 places in the Mens WC Road Race!