Colombian women's cycling team jerseys !

eeeee

Daroxtar wrote: »

Freudian slip much????

I have only one hand to type with + auto correct = auto correct mistake, nothing Freudian about it, unless of course The phone itself has issues :rolleyes:

drumswan

gadetra wrote: »

This is now the most prevalent image of women's cycling out there, and it's not gone viral as an example of how ' gold' lycra photographs, it's gone viral because of the suggested nudity of the female professional athletes, and all the attendant disrespect and misogyny that goes with it.

The cyclists designed it themselves, chose to wear it themselves and its just an ugly gold colour. Maybe its gone viral because of silly overreactions like yours.

eeeee

drumswan wrote: »

The cyclists designed it themselves, chose to wear it themselves and its just an ugly gold colour. Maybe its gone viral because of silly overreactions like yours.

Seriously? Ok you've clearly read and understood where I'm coming from.

I'm sure many, many more women will take up cycling on foot of this.

drumswan

gadetra wrote: »

I'm sure many, many more women will take up cycling on foot of this.

Eh? I think women are more intelligent than to be turned off from cycling by a trifle like this. A little bit of perspective is required.

QueensGael

drumswan wrote: »

Maybe its gone viral because of silly overreactions like yours.

Way to infantalize the poster and her opinion.

rubberdiddies

when i was scanning through the newspaper the other day, i saw this picture. didn't bat an eyelid at it and didn't read the accompanying article.

it was only hours later when it had gone 'viral' that i noticed what people were talking about. i'm still finding it hard to understand what the big deal is. to me it's just cycling gear with different colours, one of which happens to be a little bit skin tone like. the only reason why it has made the headlines and gone viral is because to some people it seems controversial.
it's gone viral, because i can only assume the designers/team/sponsors wanted it to.

its being made an issue of because people want it to be an issue.

as for having a negative effect, my OH actually got back up on the bike last night after 2 years. she denies it was because of the publicity surrounding this picture, but she was talking about it a lot yesterday!

sheesh

I think it is a genuine mistake and will be used as an example of mistakes in design in the future. I think that it probably looks flesh coloured due to the white balance being off on the camera or it the photograph being tweaked after it was shot. In the other photographs it does not look flesh coloured.

The next question is was it done deliberately? If you wanted to get extra coverage for your women's cycling team and its sponsors it would be a very smart (if sociopathically unethical) move knowing that the gold material photographs to look flesh toned under certain conditions.

eeeee

drumswan wrote: »

Eh? I think women are more intelligent than to be turned off from cycling by a trifle like this. A little bit of perspective is required.

You're right. This is the image of women's cycling I have been waiting for. It delights me. I'm so glad I get to be intelligent now to! :pac:

slap/dash

pelevin wrote: »

I get Gadetra's rage if the kit is perceived as intentionally exploitative, etc but tobh after hearing of the apparent furore & then seeing the kit, I couldn't make out what people were excited about. I'm a bit colour-blind & don't perceive subtle shade differences as sharply as others do but at no stage did this kit suggest flesh to me. It would be better to have relatively dark colours below the waistline but that's about as much as could come to mind in terms of furore.

That it was designed by a team-member, that her fellow team-members probably ok'd it with her, that it's advertisers' colours, etc suggests it's all an accidental rather than an intentional issue; but given that some/many people clearly do feel they are seeing or perceiving an inappropriate kit, then of course they should change it.

Intentionality has nothing to do with casual sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism etc etc. The I was only joking/didn't mean it cuts no ice. This idea of get over it is the mantra of the privilidged.

alastair

slap/dash wrote: »

Intentionality has nothing to do with casual sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism etc etc. The I was only joking/didn't mean it cuts no ice. This idea of get over it is the mantra of the privilidged.

Eh? So your saying that an accidental misreading of a design, still holds that design to be guilty of all of the above? How does that work then?

slap/dash

alastair wrote: »

Eh? So your saying that an accidental misreading of a design, still holds that design to be guilty of all of the above? How does that work then?

Sorry I'm not about to teach you a semester of social theory. There's a big ol internet out there that is a great resource for those that want to know. Google systemic racism/sexism as a start

fat bloke

slap/dash wrote: »

Google systemic racism/sexism as a start

Cheers man.

That's my weekend sorted.

MPFG

When I saw it I actually thought they were naked ...still do ...looks like optical illusions work on me

My first thought was ...on no women's sexuality being exploited again ....
As a woman that is pretty much how the land lies in the world ...If you are a woman its what you look like (in a kit) that seems the most important thing rather than your sporting prowess

But then i read that one of the team designed the kit and all the women seem happy to wear it.... It is there choice and I support every woman to make that choice

As a marketing ploy it seems to have worked....whcih is the saddest thing of all about this story

Wouldn't wear it myself though

Ole Rodrigo

Is it just me or is the internet completely fcuking bonkers.

newport2

slap/dash wrote: »

Intentionality has nothing to do with casual sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism etc etc.

Surely it does though? A key element being context. Someone making an outright racist slur and someone interpreting something to mean something it wasn't intended to are two very different things. It's very easy to take an innocent remark and see something that wasn't intended or just isn't there from it, descending into a situation where people are just afraid to say anything for fear of being labelled with an "ism". Rotherham being a recent prime example.

alastair

slap/dash wrote: »

Sorry I'm not about to teach you a semester of social theory. There's a big ol internet out there that is a great resource for those that want to know. Google systemic racism/sexism as a start

You took the Google school of social theoretics then? Well, it hasn't produced particularly compelling arguments. There's no 'systemic' sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/classism, or any other red herrings at play here.

LeoD

rubberdiddies wrote: »

when i was scanning through the newspaper the other day, i saw this picture. didn't bat an eyelid at it and didn't read the accompanying article.

it was only hours later when it had gone 'viral' that i noticed what people were talking about. i'm still finding it hard to understand what the big deal is. to me it's just cycling gear with different colours, one of which happens to be a little bit skin tone like. the only reason why it has made the headlines and gone viral is because to some people it seems controversial.
it's gone viral, because i can only assume the designers/team/sponsors wanted it to.

its being made an issue of because people want it to be an issue.

Rubber diddies denies sexism in cycling kit row...

pelevin

slap/dash wrote: »

Intentionality has nothing to do with casual sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism etc etc. The I was only joking/didn't mean it cuts no ice. This idea of get over it is the mantra of the privilidged.

You've quoted my post and then responded as if to something totally different. I made no mention of "only joking." I said nothing about get over it. I said it was probably an unintentional issue but now that it transpired that people perceived the kit as inappropriate or that in a certain light it looked that way, then it should certainly be changed. Where are you going with reading "a mantra of the privileged" into what I wrote?

And if this was all accidental from design to production to wearing the kit rather than intentional, then noone involved is guilty of sexism in any sense. Now that it has become an issue though, & is perceived as inappropriate, if the team chose to take advantage of the publicity & stick with the kit as is, then one could say it has become exploitative - that the cyclists are being used.

alastair

MPFG wrote: »

As a marketing ploy it seems to have worked....whcih is the saddest thing of all about this story

Except that there's nothing to suggest that anyone is trying to market anything here on the back of exploitation. It's an unfortunate misreading of a poorly considered design. It happens all the time.

MPFG

alastair wrote: »

Except that there's nothing to suggest that anyone is trying to market anything here on the back of exploitation. It's an unfortunate misreading of a poorly considered design. It happens all the time.

All cycling kits by their nature are marketing tools ...for team , sponsors ,etc

alastair

MPFG wrote: »

All cycling kits by their nature are marketing tools ...for team , sponsors ,etc

And? Does that mean they are all employing exploitative strategies (the specific claim you're making)?

MPFG

alastair wrote: »

And? Does that mean they are all employing exploitative strategies (the specific claim you're making)?

I said it was my first thought that it could be seen as exploitation and I then go on to elucidate on my second thought

I didn't say anything about 'all employing exploitative strategies'...never even comments on all (marketing or kits or whatever you mean by all) etc

If you don't read my post or chose to intrepret in your own way then there is no point in have this interchange

alastair

MPFG wrote: »

I said it was my first thought that it could be seen as exploitation and I then go on to elucidate on my second thought

I didn't say anything about 'all employing exploitative strategies'...never even comments on all (marketing or kits or whatever you mean by all) etc

If you don't read my post or chose to intrepret in your own way then there is no point in have this interchange

Oh please. :rolleyes:

You said:

My first thought was ...on no women's sexuality being exploited again ....

then you said that it would be okay with you if the women involved were okay with it, but then ended your musings with:

As a marketing ploy it seems to have worked....whcih is the saddest thing of all about this story

Now - if that's not an accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy, what is it exactly? How is anyone supposed to interpret it otherwise?

Coming back with the remarkable insight that all sponsored strips are marketing devices is the real leap of mis-interpretation of a post.

MPFG

alastair wrote: »

Oh please. :rolleyes:

You said:

then you said that it would be okay with you if the women involved were okay with it, but then ended your musings with:

Now - if that's not an accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy, what is it exactly? How is anyone supposed to interpret it otherwise?

Coming back with the remarkable insight that all sponsored strips are marketing devices is the real leap of mis-interpretation of a post.

I made no of 'accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy' ..I said it was sad....you intrept it as the way you want

All cycling kits are marketing devices ...fact ....

You are delibrately rude & confrontational ...and you can't read plain English is that clear enough for you ..or maybe you will misintrepet that

I have better things to do that read your aggressive posts ....like clean the guttering

alastair

MPFG wrote: »

I made no of 'accusation of an exploitative marketing strategy' ..I said it was sad....you intrept it as the way you want

All cycling kits are marketing devices ...fact ....

You are delibrately rude & confrontational ...and you can't read plain English is that clear enough for you ..or maybe you will misintrepet that

I have better things to do that read your aggressive posts ....like clean the guttering

Huff and puff all you like, but I note you haven't addressed my questions. And yes - it's a fact that sponsored strips are marketing devices - but who claimed otherwise? It's you that introduce this undisputed factoid to dissemble from your original claim of exploitation. That's what you meant by it being 'sad'. Let's not pretend otherwise.

fat bloke

alastair wrote: »

... sponsored strip

Now THAT I'd pay to see.

Beasty

MPFG wrote: »

You are delibrately rude & confrontational ...and you can't read plain English is that clear enough for you ..or maybe you will misintrepet that

I have better things to do that read your aggressive posts ....like clean the guttering

If you have a problem with a post or poster report it and leave the mods to deal with it as they see fit. Do not react in thread.

Noel Tallon

My head hurts. Is there a forum for women's beach volleyball?

slap/dash

pelevin wrote: »

You've quoted my post and then responded as if to something totally different. I made no mention of "only joking." I said nothing about get over it. I said it was probably an unintentional issue but now that it transpired that people perceived the kit as inappropriate or that in a certain light it looked that way, then it should certainly be changed. Where are you going with reading "a mantra of the privileged" into what I wrote?

And if this was all accidental from design to production to wearing the kit rather than intentional, then noone involved is guilty of sexism in any sense. Now that it has become an issue though, & is perceived as inappropriate, if the team chose to take advantage of the publicity & stick with the kit as is, then one could say it has become exploitative - that the cyclists are being used.

I was making a general point related to the specious intentionality argument. Not to your post in its entirety.

gordongekko

fat bloke wrote: »

Cheers man.

Sexist pig :-)

Kinet1c

Some pretty poor responses in this thread as to why people didn't think twice about it being an issue. I'd be the first to jump on stuff being too PC but I defo see an issue with the kit.

Women's sport, as a whole, gets less coverage then their male counterparts. 6 nations (rugby) and euro qualifiers (soccer) for women are lucky to get a stream up on rte.ie, nevermind full television coverage... and that's when they're actually doing well.

Same goes for funding. Take the Dublin GAA teams. In 2010, Dublin ladies won the All Ireland with their male counterparts reached the semi final. The lads team got a trip away (with partners) to somewhere sunny (exact location escapes me this time) whereas the ladies got nothing close in terms of expenditure.

So... when something like this picture arises, where the picture gets more coverage then the actual sporting event.. you can see why some of the female (or male) posters here are getting pissed off with it.

alastair

Kinet1c wrote: »

Some pretty poor responses in this thread as to why people didn't think twice about it being an issue. I'd be the first to jump on stuff being too PC but I defo see an issue with the kit.

Women's sport, as a whole, gets less coverage then their male counterparts. 6 nations (rugby) and euro qualifiers (soccer) for women are lucky to get a stream up on rte.ie, nevermind full television coverage... and that's when they're actually doing well.

Same goes for funding. Take the Dublin GAA teams. In 2010, Dublin ladies won the All Ireland with their male counterparts reached the semi final. The lads team got a trip away (with partners) to somewhere sunny (exact location escapes me this time) whereas the ladies got nothing close in terms of expenditure.

So... when something like this picture arises, where the picture gets more coverage then the actual sporting event.. you can see why some of the female (or male) posters here are getting pissed off with it.

In all of that, you've managed to avoid stating what your issue is with the kit. Now, let's remind ourselves, the kit has nothing to do with the inequality of funding and coverage of women's sports, or how the interwebs and/or traditional media handle something that accidentally looks like a bit of nudity. There's no such thing as women's GAA teams btw - both camogie and ladies football exists outside the umbrella of the GAA - so little wonder they don't get the same quality of junket from the GAA.

JayRoc

A gold stripe on a cycling kit appears flesh-coloured in a photo and people immediately see an international misogynistic agenda at work?

I have to be honest, if this is, as I would've assumed, an unintentional mistake, then comparing it to a woman being whooped at by some moron while she's out on her bike is doing no-one any favours IMO.

Remember people mentioning the word rape in the same breath as the Hunky-Dory's ads? This is the same sort of thing....it opens up all one's arguments to ridicule.

whupdedo

Kinet1c wrote: »

Some pretty poor responses in this thread as to why people didn't think twice about it being an issue. I'd be the first to jump on stuff being too PC but I defo see an issue with the kit.

Women's sport, as a whole, gets less coverage then their male counterparts. 6 nations (rugby) and euro qualifiers (soccer) for women are lucky to get a stream up on rte.ie, nevermind full television coverage... and that's when they're actually doing well.

Same goes for funding. Take the Dublin GAA teams. In 2010, Dublin ladies won the All Ireland with their male counterparts reached the semi final. The lads team got a trip away (with partners) to somewhere sunny (exact location escapes me this time) whereas the ladies got nothing close in terms of expenditure.

So... when something like this picture arises, where the picture gets more coverage then the actual sporting event.. you can see why some of the female (or male) posters here are getting pissed off with it.

That's all well and good, but women's sport don't pull in the same sponsors, punters or interest as mens sport, you can complain all you want but if their not pulling in the main interests such as sponsors and ticket sales theirs no point spending money on them,and the reason games like rugby and soccer don't get air time is because it's just not as intensive or interesting as mens games in the eyes of the people who matter ie, the fans

i saw the picture on ylyl6 a few days ago and taught nothing of it, but this thread and some of the posters are gone way beyond pc or even rational discussion, racist sexist and whatever other alarmist words you can think of, still won't make it that, have a bit of realism and less of the histrionics

alastair

JayRoc wrote: »

A gold stripe on a cycling kit appears flesh-coloured in a photo and people immediately see an international misogynistic agenda at work?

I have to be honest, if this is, as I would've assumed, an unintentional mistake, then comparing it to a woman being whooped at by some moron while she's out on her bike is doing no-one any favours IMO.

Remember people mentioning the word rape in the same breath as the Hunky-Dory's ads? This is the same sort of thing....it opens up all one's arguments to ridicule.

At least the Hunky Dorys ad bunfight was related to issues of objectification and skewed sexual representations - even if some people went a bit overboard on the dangers and messages implied. Nothing of the same going on here, that anyone can highlight. It's just a poorly designed kit.

slap/dash

whupdedo wrote: »

That's all well and good, but women's sport don't pull in the same sponsors, punters or interest as mens sport, you can complain all you want but if their not pulling in the main interests such as sponsors and ticket sales theirs no point spending money on them,and the reason games like rugby and soccer don't get air time is because it's just not as intensive or interesting as mens games in the eyes of the people who matter ie, the fans

i saw the picture on ylyl6 a few days ago and taught nothing of it, but this thread and some of the posters are gone way beyond pc or even rational discussion, racist sexist and whatever other alarmist words you can think of, still won't make it that, have a bit of realism and less of the histrionics

I'll just point out here the etymology of "histrionics": a word mediated through profoundly misogynistic Freudian theory.

Myself and others were arguing the issue but it's quite telling that when people speak against sexism etcetera they typically get the ad hominem of PC brigade thrown around along with attempts to belittle their rational capicities. This is precisely how systemic, everyday sexism works. I'm not calling you sexist btw. I'm male and as such am always gonna have to check my worst instincts, but that's the whole point: don't take common sense as rote, and try to place yourself in the position of less privileged sectors of society. End transmission.

whupdedo

slap/dash wrote: »

I'll just point out here the etymology of "histrionics": a word mediated through profoundly misogynistic Freudian theory.

Myself and others were arguing the issue but it's quite telling that when people speak against sexism etcetera they typically get the ad hominem of PC brigade thrown around along with attempts to belittle their rational capicities. This is precisely how systemic, everyday sexism works. I'm not calling you sexist btw. I'm male and as such am always gonna have to check my worst instincts, but that's the whole point: don't take common sense as rote, and try to place yourself in the position of less privileged sectors of society. End transmission.

PC has a place, but in my opinion, this isn't it, you think that I'm belittling your argument just because I mention the term PC that doesn't hold water, it doesn't make my point any less valid

You might have guilt issues because you were born male, but I on the other hand have no such affliction, what worst instincts are you on about ? I have an idea but I'd like you to clarify

LESS PRIVILEGED IN SOCIETY ? Who are you talking about,? I certainly hope it's not women

Iranoutofideas

I'm worried that I can't tell if some of these posts are serious or sarcastic.

lescol

Here is the teams response:-

Lumen

I've no idea what the question is, but is the answer burqas?

Iranoutofideas

Lumen wrote: »

I've no idea what the question is, but is the answer burqas?

How about this? More aerodynamic than a Burqa

MPFG

alastair wrote: »

Huff and puff all you like, but I note you haven't addressed my questions. And yes - it's a fact that sponsored strips are marketing devices - but who claimed otherwise? It's you that introduce this undisputed factoid to dissemble from your original claim of exploitation. That's what you meant by it being 'sad'. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Except you didn't ask any questions ....

And yes - it's a fact that sponsored strips are marketing devices - but who claimed otherwise?

You said “Except that there's nothing to suggest that anyone is trying to market anything here .” And I pointed out in response that all kits are marketing devices in response but hey that must just be me

that introduce this undisputed factoid to dissemble from ‘my’ original claim of exploitation

Except as I said I didn't state a

claim of exploitation

I said the fact that this picture is sad was based on it getting more attention than any female bike race…But you are determined to read that as my claims of exploitation

You haven’t asked me If I feel anyone is exploited …I would have given you an answer But you have just interpreted my post as you will and tried to undermine my replies with derogatory remarks like

Huff and puff all you like

You also introduce a picture of a woman in a bikini....for what purpose I don't know except to be provocative

You are the worst kind of poster…you think you are smart but you come across as anything but determined to twist statements to argue around the edges of what can be a very emotive issue for some who feel they ARE sexually exploited and this kind of imagery (even if it was unintentional) does nothing to alleviate that predicement .

but hey you go ahead and be a smart ass all you like

Darkglasses

MPFG wrote: »

You are the worst kind of poster…you think you are smart but you come across as anything but determined to twist statements to argue around the edges of what can be a very emotive issue for some who feel they ARE sexually exploited and this kind of imagery (even if it was unintentional) does nothing to alleviate that predicement .

but hey you go ahead and be a smart ass all you like

MPFG, attack the post not the poster. Last warning.

Everybody else, let's keep it civil and constructive.

longshank

MPFG wrote: »

You also introduce a picture of a woman in a bikini....for what purpose I don't know except to be provocative

but hey you go ahead and be a smart ass all you like

If all you saw was the woman in the bikini you have a seriously blinkered view...look again!

pelevin

longshank wrote: »

If all you saw was the woman in the bikini you have a seriously blinkered view...look again!

No, not seriously blinkered. The natural assumption anyone would make is the woman is the focus of attention, & only almost by fluke or if pointed out then noticing the "Sh.. yourself."

longshank

pelevin wrote: »

No, not seriously blinkered. The natural assumption anyone would make is the woman is the focus of attention, & only almost by fluke or if pointed out then noticing the "Sh.. yourself."

I think you make a presumption of natural assumption that could be interpreted as an........(and on goes another you said I said)

MPFG

I won’t stand by while some posters are being deliberately provocative and undermining the women posts on here with words like 'histronics’ when we women object to these images of women cycling and are dismissed with almost a 'nothing much going on here' as if its just our reaction that is at fault … sexism is real ...but this point scoring and baiting is insidious and enfeebling the seriousness of how some of us see it

As for the picture of the bikini …it doesn’t fit fully in the post frame and I didn’t see the caption ..but I didn’t look hard because the women took up most of the frame and I didn't look hard after that

pelevin

longshank wrote: »

I think you make a presumption of natural assumption that could be interpreted as an........(and on goes another you said I said)

I find your .........'s very offensive.

Iranoutofideas

I thought I'd seen it all on the internet...can't believe the hysterical reaction to this.

petethedrummer

Women shouldn't wear gold and men shouldn't wear red.