Token Persons

webboo

Yet there's is the big girls thread on BB
Why do people seem to have a problem with finding other people attractive. :?:

imposter2.0

Ben6899 wrote:

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.

There have been numerous examples over the years of sub-editors dropping comments into publications to check if the editor is actually doing his job or not. Sometimes, as appears to be the case here, it proves they're not..

Ben6899

At the danger of repeating myself...

Exactly ^^

imposter2.0

Webboo wrote:

We have milemuncher referring to people as mo*gs and people are getting all up tight about this.

true - but Milemakerupper's comment hasn't gone national (yet)..

bobmcstuff

mfin wrote:

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?

Well South Park IS a comedy publication... I do know people who don't like Token (or other dubious characters like the 'Coon for example...)

bobmcstuff

burnthesheep wrote:

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

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

If that's the case, why did all the other people photographed get a nice little quote about the club as their caption, rather than "predictable fat MAMIL" etc etc...

napoleond

The irony is there was another fit bird there too.

pblakeney

NapoleonD wrote:

The irony is there was another fit bird there too.

Is the problem that they weren't trying hard enough? For example.

orraloon

ach delete, thought better of it

napoleond

It really is an embarrassment. The only 'defence' I could see is if it was an in-joke with the club but that's really clutching at straws.

awavey

somebody will have to explain to me how they think its "post modern", or even satire, is that like the its just bantz card ?

Im not a regular purchaser of CW, nearly £5 for a weekly magazine thats 2 coffees!!!, but I did have one or two older copies left lying around still, and from what I can see their "We ride with...<insert club>" feature in those, didnt appear to be in anyway some kind of jokey satire on clubs, club rides, or the people they rode with. None of the photos were tagged with jokey lines like "even fat middle age men can feel great in club colours lycra" or "these guys should cut down on the cakes at the cafe stop".

because I kind of think if CW were taking that approach, most clubs would tell them to get knotted and tell their writers to go away, and CW need 52 club rides a year to fill the 4 pages it takes up so whilst Im sure it helps clubs advertise their presence, really CW need the clubs more than the clubs need CW. So its positive pen picture tags of the riders of the club, and tags of some photos, but not all photos are tagged, like "Camaraderie, cake and coffee.Perfect!" instead.

so what is the "Token attractive woman" tag about, what was this incredibly "hilarious" sub-ed trying to say, that the other women in the club werent attractive, that the club only had a single woman,or something else entirely, sorry I dont get what the joke was at all if it was meant to be a joke.

it feels like that nudge nudge wink wink kind of blokey schoolboy humour, that may be acceptable in an issue of Viz or a Carry On film from the 60s, but no I was pretty disappointed when I saw it, its hard enough for women to be taken seriously in cycling without cycling magazines taking the mickey about it, so yeah CW have quite rightly apologised for it IMO, whilst I wouldnt want anyone to lose their job over it, they should be left in no doubt they screwed things up big time.

Orkneylad

Clearly, you either get the sub-ed's 'post-feminist satire' or you don't. This is a sport that still has 'podium girls' for goodness sake, so I do find all the protestations of political correctness rather humorous.

I don't know if this helps, but it might:
Slavoj Žižek on Political Correctness: Why “Tolerance” Is Patronizing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IISMr5OMceg&t

imposter2.0

Orkneylad wrote:

Clearly, you either get the sub-ed's 'post-feminist satire' or you don't.

You should have mentioned that you were friends with the sub-ed. Otherwise, how could you possibly know what their intended meaning was?

Orkneylad

Imposter wrote:

Orkneylad wrote:

Clearly, you either get the sub-ed's 'post-feminist satire' or you don't.

You should have mentioned that you were friends with the sub-ed. Otherwise, how could you possibly know what their intended meaning was?

hehe No I have no idea who the person is.
Perhaps I 'get' the joke because of my own 'post-feminist' credentials, and perhaps 'not getting it' is a clue that some are not as 'post-feminist' as they might like to think, and cover it subconsciously with a veneer of political correctness? (See Zizek).

imposter2.0

Orkneylad wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Orkneylad wrote:

Clearly, you either get the sub-ed's 'post-feminist satire' or you don't.

You should have mentioned that you were friends with the sub-ed. Otherwise, how could you possibly know what their intended meaning was?

hehe No I have no idea who the person is.
Perhaps I 'get' the joke because of my own 'post-feminist' credentials, and perhaps 'not getting it' is a clue that some are not as 'post-feminist' as they might like to think, and cover it subconsciously with a veneer of political correctness? (See Zizek).

Couldn't give a fk about 'Zizek', tbh. So in other words, you have no more clue than anyone else about what the intended meaning was. What you do have, though, is an interpretation which fits with your own agenda.

Orkneylad

In other words, you have no interest in developing a clearer understanding of post-feminist, post-racist perspectives? Much better to just sit behind the PC veneer and not have to think at all......

imposter2.0

Orkneylad wrote:

In other words, you have no interest in developing a clearer understanding of post-feminist, post-racist perspectives? Much better to just sit behind the PC veneer and not have to think at all......

I think you need some time away from the Orkneys...

bobmcstuff

Post feminist satire? Whatever.

Maybe if CW was known for having jokey captions you could suggest it was an "edgy" comment, but it isn't. It was just a crap sexist joke.

haydenm

I assumed it was satirical when I first saw it but then I don't read the magazine. Either way it's the sort of thing you really wouldn't want to be published because it'll cause a sh1tstorm.

Slightly OT, is it possible to make a satirical sexist joke without actually being sexist?

Matthewfalle

HaydenM wrote:

I assumed it was satirical when I first saw it but then I don't read the magazine. Either way it's the sort of thing you really wouldn't want to be published because it'll cause a sh1tstorm.

Slightly OT, is it possible to make a satirical sexist joke without actually being sexist?

or a satirical joke without being sexist?

Orkneylad

HaydenM wrote:

I assumed it was satirical when I first saw it but then I don't read the magazine. Either way it's the sort of thing you really wouldn't want to be published because it'll cause a sh1tstorm.

Slightly OT, is it possible to make a satirical sexist joke without actually being sexist?

Yes you include yourself in the joke, or in this sub'ed's case, the whole velo publishing industry.

pblakeney

The whole publishing industry is sexist, because sex sells.
From both perspectives.

haydenm

Orkneylad wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I assumed it was satirical when I first saw it but then I don't read the magazine. Either way it's the sort of thing you really wouldn't want to be published because it'll cause a sh1tstorm.

Slightly OT, is it possible to make a satirical sexist joke without actually being sexist?

Yes you include yourself in the joke, or in this sub'ed's case, the whole velo publishing industry.

I just assumed he was taking the mick out of the industry but on reflection he probably didn't spend a lot of time thinking about an amusing satirical joke for his editor and whipped that in because she's fit...

Not great either way

haydenm

Webboo wrote:

Yet there's is the big girls thread on BB
Why do people seem to have a problem with finding other people attractive. :?:

I don't think the argument is about whether she is attractive or not, more whether it's appropriate to describe her as such in this sort of magazine...

pblakeney

Look at the page in question and ask yourself, why else would the picture be there, without the caption?
Other than a helmet, it doesn't bring anything to a cycling article.

awavey

PBlakeney wrote:

Look at the page in question and ask yourself, why else would the picture be there, without the caption?
Other than a helmet, it doesn't bring anything to a cycling article.

the photos that go with the "We ride with...club" articles are there to illustrate the club and the ride theyve gone on. so from what I can see from an ok tiny sample, they are almost always a selection of headshot photos of club members candidly chatting to each other, they arent posed necessarily, used to depict how friendly and welcoming they are, so the photo was perfectly in keeping with that style, the difference is none of them have stupid sexist joke tags on them.

DeVlaeminck

Orkneylad wrote:

Clearly, you either get the sub-ed's 'post-feminist satire' or you don't. This is a sport that still has 'podium girls' for goodness sake, so I do find all the protestations of political correctness rather humorous.

I don't know if this helps, but it might:
Slavoj Žižek on Political Correctness: Why “Tolerance” Is Patronizing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IISMr5OMceg&t

You sum up my take on this perfectly.

surrey_commuter

HaydenM wrote:

Orkneylad wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I assumed it was satirical when I first saw it but then I don't read the magazine. Either way it's the sort of thing you really wouldn't want to be published because it'll cause a sh1tstorm.

Slightly OT, is it possible to make a satirical sexist joke without actually being sexist?

Yes you include yourself in the joke, or in this sub'ed's case, the whole velo publishing industry.

I just assumed he was taking the mick out of the industry but on reflection he probably didn't spend a lot of time thinking about an amusing satirical joke for his editor and whipped that in because she's fit...

Not great either way

^^^
This

Somebody was meant to write a proper caption but it got overlooked

If you search you will find examples of bigger publication than CW who have printed something along the lines of "write some rubbish here blah blah blah"

agentorange88

i find it quite interesting that the 2 cycling forums i dip into have polarising views
Here there is outrage at the crasness of it on the other forum the attitude is whats all the fuss about.

sloppyschleckonds

agentorange88 wrote:

i find it quite interesting that the 2 cycling forums i dip into have polarising views
Here there is outrage at the crasness of it on the other forum the attitude is whats all the fuss about.

What is the other forum :?: