Token Persons

Orkneylad
Orkneylad Posts: 104
edited September 2017 in Road general
This did make me chuckle:

Cycling Weekly sorry for 'token attractive woman' caption
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-41122033

So much hypocrisy & hyperbole, and no-one prepared to call it for what it is.

'token persons' are a staple of media marketing; token woman, token person of colour, token child, token kitty, token suit, the list is endless. To say '"it has no place in our culture" when all marketing is based on these core principles of stereotypical tokenism is perverse.

I feel sorry for the overworked & underpaid sub-ed who'll probably now lose his job for daring to be so post-modern.
And the twitterati all in meltdown over it, all missing the point, too funny.

Nobbers!
«13

Comments

  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    I had a snigger at this too. And, for balance, my girlfriend also found it funny.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Orkneylad wrote:
    To say '"it has no place in our culture" when all marketing is based on these core principles of stereotypical tokenism is perverse.

    Good job it's not about marketing then. Casual sexism at its worst. The sub-editor should be looking forward to new career opportunities about now, I would think.
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    To say '"it has no place in our culture" when all marketing is based on these core principles of stereotypical tokenism is perverse.

    Good job it's not about marketing then. Casual sexism at its worst. The sub-editor should be looking forward to new career opportunities about now, I would think.

    Have a gold star, you can be the token PC person of outrage ;D You do realise marketing, PR, publicity spreads, it's all one?
    If you think this is bad, I assume you've never had to watch any commercial breaks, ever.......oh for a sheltered life!

    As for me, I appreciate the 'post-modern satirical fat-finger' whenever I can get it.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Smashtastic.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • trivial_poursuivant
    trivial_poursuivant Posts: 1,136
    Matthewfalle wrote:
    Smashtastic.

    I see it found the LCD it was aimed at then :wink:
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,419
    It must be a nightmare in advertising and marketing these days.
    Sex sells, but sexism is non PC. What to do? Develop thick skin.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Orkneylad wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    To say '"it has no place in our culture" when all marketing is based on these core principles of stereotypical tokenism is perverse.

    Good job it's not about marketing then. Casual sexism at its worst. The sub-editor should be looking forward to new career opportunities about now, I would think.

    Have a gold star, you can be the token PC person of outrage ;D You do realise marketing, PR, publicity spreads, it's all one?
    If you think this is bad, I assume you've never had to watch any commercial breaks, ever.......oh for a sheltered life!

    As for me, I appreciate the 'post-modern satirical fat-finger' whenever I can get it.

    Sounds like you're more outraged than I am. The sub-ed was a fking idiot. Not just for his casual sexism (you can argue it wasn't, if you like), but for also dropping CW in the sh1t like that. So the guy was a fking idiot - and apparently a sh1t sub-ed. If he's still there at Monday's editorial meeting, I'll be very surprised.
  • trivial_poursuivant
    trivial_poursuivant Posts: 1,136
    PBlakeney wrote:
    It must be a nightmare in advertising and marketing these days.
    Sex sells, but sexism is non PC. What to do? Develop thick skin.

    Yep, the double standards in advertising makes it a mine field. We will stick a picture of a scantily clad women on a billboard but don't you dare look at her.

    I is a shame when a beautiful women (or man) cannot be appreciated without it being misconstrued as objectifying. The wording in cycling weekly was wrong but it's as though appreciating beauty became a shameful act.
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    Imposter wrote:

    Sounds like you're more outraged than I am. The sub-ed was a fking idiot. Not just for his casual sexism (you can argue it wasn't, if you like), but for also dropping CW in the sh1t like that. So the guy was a fking idiot - and apparently a sh1t sub-ed. If he's still there at Monday's editorial meeting, I'll be very surprised.

    I was trying to be humorous. :D

    You really have no idea, sit-in on pretty-much any campaign meeting and you'd be spitting teeth.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,205
    Doesn't spitting teeth mean you've been beaten up? Do you mean feathers?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Orkneylad wrote:
    I was trying to be humorous. :D

    Try harder.
    Orkneylad wrote:
    You really have no idea, sit-in on pretty-much any campaign meeting and you'd be spitting teeth.

    Sat in on plenty, mate. Although I don't really see why you are equating an editorial feature in a print publication with some kind of marketing campaign. The two are not even close.
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    I mean, one could easily argue that the knowing use of the words "token attractive woman" is an anti-sexist, post-PC insiders joke about modern media's PC totalitarianism.

    And we're assuming the sub-ed was male, which is a form of sexism in itself.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Orkneylad wrote:
    And we're assuming the sub-ed was male, which is a form of sexism in itself.

    Sub-ed's gender is irrelevant.
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    I was trying to be humorous. :D

    Try harder.
    Orkneylad wrote:
    You really have no idea, sit-in on pretty-much any campaign meeting and you'd be spitting teeth.

    Sat in on plenty, mate. Although I don't really see why you are equating an editorial feature in a print publication with some kind of marketing campaign. The two are not even close.

    I will try harder. :D

    Feature articles are good PR (generally). It's highlighting a club, who -I'm sure- hope it will mean more members and enquiries. It's marketing. Certainly a lot more folk are aware of them now, what's that old cliche about no publicity being bad......
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    And we're assuming the sub-ed was male, which is a form of sexism in itself.

    Sub-ed's gender is irrelevant.

    Hardly. A female sub-ed writing that alters the whole context. Also a male feminist, for that matter.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Orkneylad wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    I was trying to be humorous. :D

    Try harder.
    Orkneylad wrote:
    You really have no idea, sit-in on pretty-much any campaign meeting and you'd be spitting teeth.

    Sat in on plenty, mate. Although I don't really see why you are equating an editorial feature in a print publication with some kind of marketing campaign. The two are not even close.

    I will try harder. :D

    Feature articles are good PR (generally). It's highlighting a club, who -I'm sure- hope it will mean more members and enquiries. It's marketing. Certainly a lot more folk are aware of them now, what's that old cliche about no publicity being bad......

    It's good publicity for the club, but the origin of the article is editorial, not advertorial, so it's not marketing-led in the typical sense.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Orkneylad wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    And we're assuming the sub-ed was male, which is a form of sexism in itself.

    Sub-ed's gender is irrelevant.

    Hardly. A female sub-ed writing that alters the whole context. Also a male feminist, for that matter.

    If we agree the comment is sexist - then it doesn't matter who made it. The offence is the comment. The offender is the sub-ed. Gender does not come into it.
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Orkneylad wrote:
    And we're assuming the sub-ed was male, which is a form of sexism in itself.

    Sub-ed's gender is irrelevant.

    Hardly. A female sub-ed writing that alters the whole context. Also a male feminist, for that matter.

    If we agree the comment is sexist - then it doesn't matter who made it. The offence is the comment. The offender is the sub-ed. Gender does not come into it.

    But we don't agree; I'd call that a satire/statement against sexism. We shall agree to differ! :D
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,440
    Stupid thing to write - even if it was meant as some sort of pro feminist joke (which would be weird, since it's not a joke, but whatever)

    Everyone else gets a little bio and the blonde woman gets "token attractive woman"... Of course people are going to be annoyed.
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    It's satire. Brilliantly done as well.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • tootsie323
    tootsie323 Posts: 199
    PBlakeney wrote:
    It must be a nightmare in advertising and marketing these days.
    Sex sells, but sexism is non PC. What to do? Develop thick skin.
    Thick skin isn't seen as sexy. That may be a PC minefield in itself.
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    Ben6899 wrote:
    It's satire. Brilliantly done as well.

    Will be ironic when they lose their job.....on grounds of sexism, when making anti-sexist joke. Perfect punchline.
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    It's like no one ever watched "The Day Today".
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • burnthesheep
    burnthesheep Posts: 675
    Jesus tapdancing Christ.

    What shall we say instead? "Stock photo: female cyclist, long hair, light colored hair, smiling, smooth skin, athletic build"

    This kind of PC junk is why we have in the US such a horridly large % of the population with not just "a few extra pounds" but actually in a health crisis of being morbidly obese. You can't call it a spade anymore. People EVEN get offended at labeling a person obese if they are indeed X% overweight. "Well, it should be X% plus 10 more %'s because that amount is too low".

    Humans are programmed as to what is attractive and what is not. It's survival instinct for breeding. These days we're programmed in our little mammalian part of the brain to like certain things.

    People need to get over themselves.

    People like looking at people that look good. If you don't look good don't get mad at people that do. Get in bloody shape, dress more appropriately, get a decent haircut, and dress like you don't still live in your mum's spare bedroom at age 40.

    I was ugly in high school. I was skinny and had a decent face, but that face may as well have been a pepperoni pizza. Should I have been in a cover photo for the school's yearly picture book? Hell no. Pick someone handsome or pretty.
  • Orkneylad
    Orkneylad Posts: 104
    Ben6899 wrote:
    It's like no one ever watched "The Day Today".

    PCquisition required viewing. :D
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,419
    Trivial poursuivant wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    It must be a nightmare in advertising and marketing these days.
    Sex sells, but sexism is non PC. What to do? Develop thick skin.

    Yep, the double standards in advertising makes it a mine field. We will stick a picture of a scantily clad women on a billboard but don't you dare look at her.

    I is a shame when a beautiful women (or man) cannot be appreciated without it being misconstrued as objectifying. The wording in cycling weekly was wrong but it's as though appreciating beauty became a shameful act.
    Yup. Why is acceptable to capitalise on natural good brains, endurance, speed etc, but not breasts, or knob for that matter? It is all physicality.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    In CW it wasn't in a comedy context, it's not a comedy publication either (insert predictable "that's arguable" joke for crap cyclists 'in' joke for twats). It is not worth spitting flames over though, it was just a misjudgment/mistake to publish it.

    I wonder what anyone spitting flames thinks of the character Token in South Park?
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    We have milemuncher referring to people as mo*gs and people are getting all up tight about this.
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    Exactly ^^

    No one is saying it was comedy from CW, but I think someone in their ranks fancied a laugh at the expense of the usual publishing/marketing protocol.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • joncomelately
    joncomelately Posts: 660
    Webboo wrote:
    We have milemuncher referring to people as mo*gs and people are getting all up tight about this.

    Maybe everyone's blocked MM? It may also be that he's sadly predictable (I don't really know as I'm relatively recent round these parts), whereas I would guess a national magazine like CW is not usually known for captions like that.

Categories