Vuelta Podium Girls Change

professeur

bobmcstuff wrote:

Something that seems to be missing from the discussion is that the world of VIP hosting is presumably heavily dominated by attractive women. It's just this type of event where they become publicly visible.

The argument that "they enjoy it therefore it's fine" is a bit of a red herring - I'm sure they do enjoy it, but fundamentally you're talking about a job role which is gendered for no good reason.

Above The Cows wrote:

BM5 wrote:

A step in the right direction. These things definitely do matter. Not too great if they are just adding good looking guys. What about ex pro from the area or something like that.

This would be a good idea, or some local cyclist or other sports person who is successful.

I prefer junior racers or having a competition for local kids to enter etc. - gives them a chance to meet their heroes and would be really good for outreach/engagement/PR. Make it mean something.

Best suggestion all thread.

Sadly, amongst other opinions, it's difficult to tell who's joking and who isn't because parody is so close to the the genuine attitude of many.

effillo

Just been watching La Course with my son. He asked me 'daddy why are there no men racing, are they not allowed?'

dinyull

Was there any guy candy on display?

mfin

inseine wrote:

Sometimes it feels like the 1970s on here. I hope the people posting nonsense are really old, otherwise I feel quite sad.

Funny how predictable it becomes "being offended on behalf of others too", failing to spot there's a big bunch of people here who are not girls but who want this kind of thing to be a thing of the past.

It's also been changed into a equality argument, and has been mentioned the Vuelta might not have done the best thing but at least they've done something. The people not liking the objectification of women on the podium were concerned with equal rights for men to be objectified, the vuelta's way of changing it up might not help there on face value.

I'd rather they put a couple of blokes embraced and french kissing on the side of the podium myself, it would be more positive having something like that to break down more barriers than parading women around to be ogled. It would have as much to do with cycling as the podium girls are. The shock might finish off some of the old farts with their backward attitudes too, you never know.

type:epyt

Not too sure about the 'parading around to be ogled' part ... The women are representing the race and the sponsors, who will want to present their event and/or company in the most positive way possible to the TV viewer and those in attendance who are getting a snapshot of that company and not a meet and greet with the CEO or business prospectus ... If that means a pretty girl in a colourful dress is going to do that job better than a middle aged man in a polyester suit, then so be it ...

People are just choosing to ignore basic marketing for the sake of making their point ... Pro cycling is advertising, masquerading as sport after all ...

mfin

type:epyt wrote:

who will want to present their event and/or company in the most positive way possible to the TV viewer ... If that means a pretty girl in a colourful dress is going to do that job better than a middle aged man in a polyester suit, then so be it ...

Ok, above cut down, (still fair to what you are saying I think) you look like you are thinking the pretty girl has some kind of effect of presenting the event or company in a "positive" way.

Does it? and what on earth does that mean? Are you saying it results in them doing more business or their event being more successful. I can't see it at all. It all sounds a bit made up to me.

Also, even if it did, it does not make it right.

type:epyt

mfin wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

who will want to present their event and/or company in the most positive way possible to the TV viewer ... If that means a pretty girl in a colourful dress is going to do that job better than a middle aged man in a polyester suit, then so be it ...

Ok, above cut down, (still fair to what you are saying I think) you look like you are thinking the pretty girl has some kind of effect of presenting the event or company in a "positive" way.

Does it? and what on earth does that mean? Are you saying it results in them doing more business or their event being more successful. I can't see it at all. It all sounds a bit made up to me.

Also, even if it did, it does not make it right.

You missed out the 'snapshot' bit (on purpose no doubt) ... A pretty girl in a dress with a sponsors logo on is going to stick in the mind more than a nondescript man (or woman) with a TV graphic telling you who/what they are ... 90% of advertising campaigns in the world will tell you that …

dinyull

mfin wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

who will want to present their event and/or company in the most positive way possible to the TV viewer ... If that means a pretty girl in a colourful dress is going to do that job better than a middle aged man in a polyester suit, then so be it ...

Ok, above cut down, (still fair to what you are saying I think) you look like you are thinking the pretty girl has some kind of effect of presenting the event or company in a "positive" way.

Does it? and what on earth does that mean? Are you saying it results in them doing more business or their event being more successful. I can't see it at all. It all sounds a bit made up to me.

Also, even if it did, it does not make it right.

Depends on how you look at it, but a pretty girl in a colourful dress will make it onto more tv screens, twitter, newspapers etc than a middle aged bloke in a polyester suit.

Is that more positive? Probably not, but they are after exposure.

It's all advertising at the end of the day and LCL, skoda, carrefour etc all pay the big money for exposure.


I know it's to a completely different scale, ie men as the object - but do you find it offensive when oiled up muscley men in small shorts are prancing about in yogurt adverts aimed towards women?

mfin

type:epyt wrote:

mfin wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

who will want to present their event and/or company in the most positive way possible to the TV viewer ... If that means a pretty girl in a colourful dress is going to do that job better than a middle aged man in a polyester suit, then so be it ...

Ok, above cut down, (still fair to what you are saying I think) you look like you are thinking the pretty girl has some kind of effect of presenting the event or company in a "positive" way.

Does it? and what on earth does that mean? Are you saying it results in them doing more business or their event being more successful. I can't see it at all. It all sounds a bit made up to me.

Also, even if it did, it does not make it right.

You missed out the 'snapshot' bit (on purpose no doubt) ... A pretty girl in a dress with a sponsors logo on is going to stick in the mind more than a nondescript man (or woman) with a TV graphic telling you who/what they are ... 90% of advertising campaigns in the world will tell you that …

I just re-read to make sure I hadn't missed anything, but no, I don't think your 'shapshot sentence' changed anything and I didn't omit it on purpose.

As for the rest of what you've said there, I don't think you can apply trends in advertising campaigns to completely needless prescence on the podium.

type:epyt

It's not needless, they are representing the sponsors who help pay for the event ... Jo Rowsell Shand just spent 10 minutes banging on about just that ... Would you prefer all pro cycling to be at the level of the women's sport just so that a marketing man doesn't cause you some perceived offence?

mfin

Dinyull wrote:

mfin wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

who will want to present their event and/or company in the most positive way possible to the TV viewer ... If that means a pretty girl in a colourful dress is going to do that job better than a middle aged man in a polyester suit, then so be it ...

Ok, above cut down, (still fair to what you are saying I think) you look like you are thinking the pretty girl has some kind of effect of presenting the event or company in a "positive" way.

Does it? and what on earth does that mean? Are you saying it results in them doing more business or their event being more successful. I can't see it at all. It all sounds a bit made up to me.

Also, even if it did, it does not make it right.

Depends on how you look at it, but a pretty girl in a colourful dress will make it onto more tv screens, twitter, newspapers etc than a middle aged bloke in a polyester suit.

Is that more positive? Probably not, but they are after exposure.

It's all advertising at the end of the day and LCL, skoda, carrefour etc all pay the big money for exposure.


I know it's to a completely different scale, ie men as the object - but do you find it offensive when oiled up muscley men in small shorts are prancing about in yogurt adverts aimed towards women?

Again, see previous post I made.

Your point about men in adverts ...firstly you are saying I "find it offensive", I don't find it "offensive" with women, I find it wrong, which is different. I also think it's a bad and damaging message being sent out. I'm not being offended on anyone's behalf either. If you can't recognise (I don't know) that objectification of women goes on way too much, then fair enough. Go ask a bunch of intelligent teenage girls about what they think, in fact, just ask anyone intelligent who has empathy.

As for the men in adverts comparison, well it may well be wrong too but the size of the problem is so much smaller. Women fully deserve complete equality in all forms and history shows they have not had anywhere near this.

mfin

type:epyt wrote:

It's not needless, they are representing the sponsors who help pay for the event ... Jo Rowsell Shand just spent 10 minutes banging on about just that ... Would you prefer all pro cycling to be at the level of the women's sport just so that a marketing man doesn't cause you some perceived offence?

It is needless, get real.

What on earth does "Would you prefer all pro cycling to be at the level of the women's sport just so that a marketing man doesn't cause you some perceived offence?" mean ...how does that situation relate to me thinking there should be no podium girls as there is at the moment? If there were no podium girls do you think the "level" of the sport would change?

I'm losing the ability to follow your argument as it is all a bit weird.

mfin

I wonder how many of these posters are actually Donald Trump?

dinyull

mfin wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

mfin wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

who will want to present their event and/or company in the most positive way possible to the TV viewer ... If that means a pretty girl in a colourful dress is going to do that job better than a middle aged man in a polyester suit, then so be it ...

Ok, above cut down, (still fair to what you are saying I think) you look like you are thinking the pretty girl has some kind of effect of presenting the event or company in a "positive" way.

Does it? and what on earth does that mean? Are you saying it results in them doing more business or their event being more successful. I can't see it at all. It all sounds a bit made up to me.

Also, even if it did, it does not make it right.

Depends on how you look at it, but a pretty girl in a colourful dress will make it onto more tv screens, twitter, newspapers etc than a middle aged bloke in a polyester suit.

Is that more positive? Probably not, but they are after exposure.

It's all advertising at the end of the day and LCL, skoda, carrefour etc all pay the big money for exposure.


I know it's to a completely different scale, ie men as the object - but do you find it offensive when oiled up muscley men in small shorts are prancing about in yogurt adverts aimed towards women?

Again, see previous post I made.

Your point about men in adverts ...firstly you are saying I "find it offensive", I don't find it "offensive" with women, I find it wrong, which is different. I also think it's a bad and damaging message being sent out. I'm not being offended on anyone's behalf either. If you can't recognise (I don't know) that objectification of women goes on way too much, then fair enough. Go ask a bunch of intelligent teenage girls about what they think, in fact, just ask anyone intelligent who has empathy.

As for the men in adverts comparison, well it may well be wrong too but the size of the problem is so much smaller. Women fully deserve complete equality in all forms and history shows they have not had anywhere near this.

I do take your point, objectification is almost accepted. And that is wrong.

I just maybe don't see podium girls as being objectified.

It annoys me when I see teeny boppers following bands like Little Mix who pretend to be all about showing how awesome women can be etc and then see them prancing about on screen wearing barely anything. Sells a completely wrong image to young girls, the people they are supposedly championing. But then I know they are only doing what a load of (probably) middle ages blokes tell them.

type:epyt

mfin wrote:

I wonder how many of these posters are actually Donald Trump?

Good point, well made ...

larkim

Ref men in yoghurt ads - they are almost invariably done with a degree of tongue in cheek, pastiching the blatantly objectifying approach that lots of advertising used to use with only women in subservient roles being used.

Personally I don't believe there is absolutely nothing wrong in a degree of objectification - of a person being used entirely for their visual aesthetic.

But it is massively one sided game and relies on a specific paradigm of the female form. A few token muscled, oiled men doesnt' change the overall position.

Pross

wrong thread.

craigus89

Dinyull wrote:

I do take your point, objectification is almost accepted. And that is wrong.

I just maybe don't see podium girls as being objectified.

Aaaaaaaand thread.

This will only ever go around in circles though.

There are a million other things that peoples energy could be directed at to solve this problem. Some attractive classy dressed women handing flowers to a cyclist is hardly worth burning calories over.

bm5

What I do miss are the Vuelta podium girls huge handbags with the sponsors logo on them. And the strange Spanish mascots that were unfathomable. Love it when there is a local "prize" like the Asturian hat or the hams Aru got the other day.

smithy21

Mfin- are you trying to say you would prefer, I don't know, say Cav presenting instead

mfin

smithy21 wrote:

Mfin- are you trying to say you would prefer, I don't know, say Cav presenting instead

Of course.

There's no anger in my dislike of Cav by the way, I enjoy disliking him.

So, I don't hate him, and yes, I'd much much rather have him up there kissing the winner than the podium girls.

dolan_driver

mfin wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

Mfin- are you trying to say you would prefer, I don't know, say Cav presenting instead

Of course.

There's no anger in my dislike of Cav by the way, I enjoy disliking him.

So, I don't hate him, and yes, I'd much much rather have him up there kissing the winner than the podium girls.

When you say Cav kissing the winner, are you talking about Cav presenting flowers to the women's race winner or the men's? If you're talking about the men's race, I think you had better run that by him first.

DD.

coopster_the_1st

If you have a physical gift of being able run fast or have a great singing voice, male or female, you are supported to make best use of this gift, but if you are female and seen as attractive there is a section of society that wants to restrict that person making the best use of that gift. If you are male and seen as attractive there are not these imposed restrictions.

In the past the argument could be used that this was because of a male dominated society. Today, that argument does not work as those females in possession of the attractive gift are happy to maximise it for their benefit.

There is something wrong with the pressure put on girls/women but it is the bitchiness and pressure from other females that is the issue and not podium girls making use of their physical gift.

top_bhoy

Having just watched the presentation of 'La Course', it didn't matter one iota that it was guys today giving the flowers and not other women. The podium presentation was amateurish with the women looking very awkward at times. I also watched the presentation from yesterdays mens stage won by EBH, it was a very short, precise presentation which was very tastefully done. My conclusion, the women in todays race in Marseille deserved better and the gender related problems in cycling lie far deeper than whether to have podium girls or not.

emadden

Rigoberto likes being on the podium

blazing_saddles

Nothing to do with podium girls or sexism, but some things are just plain wrong with this equality lark.

From this:-



To this:-



(Rick will understand)

FocusZing

Froomes form going into and during the TDF didn't seem to his highest level. Is this going to be his shot at the dream double I wonder!?

secretsqirrel

FocusZing wrote:

Froomes form going into and during the TDF didn't seem to his highest level. Is this going to be his shot at the dream double I wonder!?

If you're not on the wrong thread, I don't know what to think :shock:

richa

SecretSqirrel wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Froomes form going into and during the TDF didn't seem to his highest level. Is this going to be his shot at the dream double I wonder!?

If you're not on the wrong thread, I don't know what to think :shock:

I think he may give the dream double a miss.

His wife turned up for the finale in Paris.

rick_chasey

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Nothing to do with podium girls or sexism, but some things are just plain wrong with this equality lark.

From this:-



To this:-



(Rick will understand)

As much as I liked Mart for sentimental reasons, I do prefer the new format.....