ASO demands apology from Bakelants after sexist remarks

[RedheadDane]

I'll never refer to women with their married names (except out of ignorance) until men get the names of their wives...

In the Middle-Ages that did not exist. Children did not automatically got their fathers' names.

Even if the woman chooses to get her husband's name? And I'm pretty sure I've heard of cases in which the husband took the wife's name... And sometimes a woman chooses to keep her name, Deignan didn't so isn't insisting on referring to her as Armitstead refusing to acknowledge her choice?

In the Middle-Ages surnames wasn't a thing.
Nowadays children get whatever name(s) the parents decide. Sometimes the father's, sometimes the mother's, sometimes a mix.

 

[Pippo_San]

Just in to say.

JAN YOU'RE THE MAN.

 

[May0maniac]

Re:

like anyone with any real taste would want to sleep with a professional cyclist, they must have the least appealing body type on the planet, it would be like lying on top of a xylophone.

I didn't want to mention it because it has very little to do with the actual problem, but there are a few cyclists who are married to podium girls/have met their partner that way.
De Kort, Quinziato, Hincapie and Tom Danielson would be examples.

 

[markene2]

Jesus christ how did that joke make this forum explode?

 

[RedheadDane]

Re:

Jesus christ how did that joke make this forum explode?

It's... pretty easy to make this forum explode.

 

[Chomsky]

Re: Re:

Because he is in control of making the "joke" and can actively choose to make himself a part of it, although I still think you are pushing the belittling himself when society and history would show that he is not. The podium girls could not actively choose to be part of his "joke".

I agree that his inclusion of the podium girls was poor taste, but I do not agree that it was meant to be sexist. He first said he would miss his daughter the most, afterwards he hints at cheating on his partner - I'd say he was belittling himself quite clearly there.

Then we should probably end that discussion there as we won't agree or convince each other.

[quote="King Boonen":15yc6ozv]
He claimed that when his porno stash runs out he doesn't have to worry because there are podium girls around. That doesn't imply that he thinks he "has a chance" it implies that he thinks it's likely.

His words objectify women and imply that the podium girls are less than full human beings with their main use being to satisfy his sexual desires.

Words hurt. Jokes hurt. When we marginalize peopled with words and jokes we treat them differently. Women are subject to not only constant objectification but also to unwanted advances and attacks. They have to live everyday with caution and fear. They get paid 70 percent of what men do for the same work. Why? It all begins with words and jokes. When it's ok to treat people differently and marginalize their humanity with words and jokes it results in consequences where we treat them worse.

Bakelanta words might be thoughtless and not intended to do harm but they do harm and women suffer everyday because we accept attitudes like his.

Unsure why you quoted me. Pretty clear that I don't accept attitudes like this.[/quote]

I am sorry. I did not mean to imply I disagreed with you. Rather I liked your comment and was trying to build on it. But your right I probably shoukd have posted a separate comment and not quoted a reply. My apologies about any confusion.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Because he is in control of making the "joke" and can actively choose to make himself a part of it, although I still think you are pushing the belittling himself when society and history would show that he is not. The podium girls could not actively choose to be part of his "joke".

I agree that his inclusion of the podium girls was poor taste, but I do not agree that it was meant to be sexist. He first said he would miss his daughter the most, afterwards he hints at cheating on his partner - I'd say he was belittling himself quite clearly there.

Then we should probably end that discussion there as we won't agree or convince each other.

[quote="King Boonen":138zai0l]
He claimed that when his porno stash runs out he doesn't have to worry because there are podium girls around. That doesn't imply that he thinks he "has a chance" it implies that he thinks it's likely.

His words objectify women and imply that the podium girls are less than full human beings with their main use being to satisfy his sexual desires.

Words hurt. Jokes hurt. When we marginalize peopled with words and jokes we treat them differently. Women are subject to not only constant objectification but also to unwanted advances and attacks. They have to live everyday with caution and fear. They get paid 70 percent of what men do for the same work. Why? It all begins with words and jokes. When it's ok to treat people differently and marginalize their humanity with words and jokes it results in consequences where we treat them worse.

Bakelanta words might be thoughtless and not intended to do harm but they do harm and women suffer everyday because we accept attitudes like his.

Unsure why you quoted me. Pretty clear that I don't accept attitudes like this.

I am sorry. I did not mean to imply I disagreed with you. Rather I liked your comment and was trying to build on it. But your right I probably shoukd have posted a separate comment and not quoted a reply. My apologies about any confusion.[/quote]

Ah ok, no problem, it can be hard to get the intention of a quote

 

[jsem94]

Wow this thread escalated quickly. The thing is a joke like this can work if you set it up right so it is obviously and blatantly clear you are joking and don't actually mean a word of it. Louis CK rape joke is an excellent example. But this was more like, let's laugh about the notion that podium girls are loose women and a bunch of old dudes start laughing kind of thing. Not remotely funny also, no finesse in it whatsoever.

Now I like extremely offensive humor, even with no finesse about it, but this wasn't my cup of tea and it was quite offensive. There's a time and a place for certain jokes too.

He shouldn't be lynched though, but an apology was definitely appropriate.

 

[PeterB]

I would probably never make jokes of this sort and don't consider them funny so I can't appreciate his words, but one thought crossed my mind: what if he simply talked based on his own experience of how things like that maybe sometimes really go? I mean, it would otherwise be quite an imaginative response from him, wouldn't it? If, hypothetically, the rest day activities like that really happen, is it still fair to condemn him for saying so publicly?

 

[jmdirt]

And a few people gave me a bad time about making a thread for Warbasse and his RACE RESULTS!

 

[Ruby United]

Re: Re:

Nice rant, but I'm not sure of the point?

I was explaining why me arguing with you and elaborating why your point is nonsensical and illogical was not a violation of your free speech, as you insinuated. I explained I enjoy having these discussions and I want you to express your opinion so that I can explain to you why you are wrong. You have the right to your opinion. I have the right to explain why you are wrong.
Quite a simple point I explained clearly - not sure how you did not understand it.

Are you saying that I have to justify why singling out people based on the colour of their skin is racist?

No. As I clearly pointed out, you have to justify why a joke singling out people of colour makes them 'a racist'.
I clearly stated that the actual joke can have racist/misogynistic/antisemitic connotations yet that does not automatically make the perpetrator of the joke a racist/misogynist/anti-semite.
Once again, quite a simple point I explained clearly - not sure how you did not understand it.
(Furthermore, you have still failed to explain your opinion, despite requests from me for you to elaborate so that I can try understand your perspective)

I'm unsure if internalised anti-semitisim is recognised like internalised racism and internalised sexism.

I'm not sure what this statement means. Are you referring to implicit bias or sexism or racism? (If so, that is another very interesting conversation.) Please clarify what you meant by this statement.

This statement seems predicated on the premise that I am against freedom of speech, which is not the case, so I didn't see a need to respond.

Again, point out where I've shown I'm against free speech please.

In the following way:
You advocated for firing someone based on statements they made that did not incite, or insinuate, violence or physical hatred.
Freedom of speech means that one has the right to make statements that do not incite, or insinuate, violence or physical hatred.
Thus you stripped someone of their freedom of speech.
Once again, quite a simple point - I do not understand how you did not understand it.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Wow this thread escalated quickly. The thing is a joke like this can work if you set it up right so it is obviously and blatantly clear you are joking and don't actually mean a word of it. Louis CK rape joke is an excellent example. But this was more like, let's laugh about the notion that podium girls are loose women and a bunch of old dudes start laughing kind of thing. Not remotely funny also, no finesse in it whatsoever.

Now I like extremely offensive humor, even with no finesse about it, but this wasn't my cup of tea and it was quite offensive. There's a time and a place for certain jokes too.

He shouldn't be lynched though, but an apology was definitely appropriate.

I agree with this, I think wasn't necessary or particularly funny but an apology is enough and we can probably move on from this.

 

[Singer01]

he's sure going to get a frosty reception next time he is on a podium.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Nice rant, but I'm not sure of the point?

I was explaining why me arguing with you and elaborating why your point is nonsensical and illogical was not a violation of your free speech, as you insinuated. I explained I enjoy having these discussions and I want you to express your opinion so that I can explain to you why you are wrong. You have the right to your opinion. I have the right to explain why you are wrong.
Quite a simple point I explained clearly - not sure how you did not understand it.

Yeah, still doesn't make any sense.

Are you saying that I have to justify why singling out people based on the colour of their skin is racist?

No. As I clearly pointed out, you have to justify why a joke singling out people of colour makes them 'a racist'.
I clearly stated that the actual joke can have racist/misogynistic/antisemitic connotation yet that does not automatically make the perpetrator of the joke a racist/misogynist/antisemitic.
Once again, quite a simple point I explained clearly - not sure how you did not understand it.
(Furthermore, you have still failed to explain your opinion, despite requests from me for you to elaborate so that I can try understand your perspective)

Yeah, I'm not going to explain to you why saying racist things makes someone a racist. This seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

I'm unsure if internalised anti-semitisim is recognised like internalised racism and internalised sexism.

I'm not sure what this statement means. Are you referring to implicit bias or sexism or racism? (If so, that is another very interesting conversation.) Please clarify what you meant by this statement.

Feel free to google internalised racism, I'm not here to teach you.

This statement seems predicated on the premise that I am against freedom of speech, which is not the case, so I didn't see a need to respond.

Again, point out where I've shown I'm against free speech please.

In the following way:
You advocated for firing someone based on statements they made that did not incite, or insinuate, violence or physical hatred.
Freedom of speech means that one has the right to make statements that do not incite, or insinuate, violence or physical hatred.
Thus you stripped someone of their freedom of speech.
Once again, quite a simple point - I do not understand how you did not understand it.

Firstly I clarified that I meant his tour position, not his contract.

The rest of this is frankly absurd. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of your speech.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

This is what Bakelants is expected to do by the Belgium public, he turns up in TV shows and jokes around. If you read the full interview you would see one big satire.

 

[Ruby United]

Your whole quote above simply reiterated what you have already written without any logic or explanation. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation.
In contrast, I have clearly explained in detail my opinions and why I hold them.
You call my comments 'frankly absurd,' you said 'I'm not going to explain..." I've asked repeatedly for you to explain your position. You have refused.
I, meanwhile, have clearly explained all my opinions.
I wonder why you refuse to engage in a logical debate and refuse to explain your opinions.?
Effectively, your post explained nothing.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Your whole quote above simply reiterated what you have already written without any logic or explanation. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation.
In contrast, I have clearly explained in detail my opinions and why I hold them.
You call my comments 'frankly absurd,' you said 'I'm not going to explain..." I've asked repeatedly for you to explain your position. You have refused.
I, meanwhile, have clearly explained all my opinions.
I wonder why you refuse to engage in a logical debate and refuse to explain your opinions.?
Effectively, your post explained nothing.

Lets just say that what you think is an explanation I consider a justification and mitigation. The two are not the same.

I said I'm not going to explained a concept you can look up for yourself. The same way I wouldn't explain what friction is when discussing rolling resistance of bicycles.

I called one of your comments absurd and it is. Seems like we're done here.

 

[kingjr]

Does someone have the full interview in Dutch? Or did I miss something upthread?

Apparently you need to be a comedian by trade to get away with banter like that. Otherwise it's a no-go.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

31 years old, knowingly talking to a reporter, spouting sexist and idiotic remarks that would make a horny teenager re-evaluate their attitude to women whilst talking about parents and daughter?

Do we know if the reporter was male or female? Was this filmed/recorded as I wonder how it was received.

 

[Tonton]

This thread should be "Bakelants is the new Sagan" ...that is if he starts winning bikes races. Maybe less porn and more rest would be a step in the right direction.

I understand the free-speech and humor arguments. However JB represents a team, sponsors, he can't just say or do whatever he wants. What he said was not only stupid, classless, but also very unprofessional.

He apologized, we can move on, but I don't see myself cheering for him in the future. What an idiot...

 

[Echoes]

There were similar comments in the film your username is named after and avatar comes from.

 

[Ruby United]

Re: Re:

Your whole quote above simply reiterated what you have already written without any logic or explanation. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation.
In contrast, I have clearly explained in detail my opinions and why I hold them.
You call my comments 'frankly absurd,' you said 'I'm not going to explain..." I've asked repeatedly for you to explain your position. You have refused.
I, meanwhile, have clearly explained all my opinions.
I wonder why you refuse to engage in a logical debate and refuse to explain your opinions.?
Effectively, your post explained nothing.

Lets just say that what you think is an explanation I consider a justification and mitigation. The two are not the same.

I said I'm not going to explained a concept you can look up for yourself. The same way I wouldn't explain what friction is when discussing rolling resistance of bicycles.

I called one of your comments absurd and it is. Seems like we're done here.

Once again you refuse to discuss your opinion. Interesting.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

His words objectify women and imply that the podium girls are less than full human beings with their main use being to satisfy his sexual desires.

Words hurt. Jokes hurt. When we marginalize peopled with words and jokes we treat them differently. Women are subject to not only constant objectification but also to unwanted advances and attacks. They have to live everyday with caution and fear. They get paid 70 percent of what men do for the same work.

Do you have a detailed statistic on that, one that includes factors such as:

Number of hours that people work
Number of weekend days that people work
Number of overtime hours that people take
Number of sick days that people take
Number of paid holidays that people take
Level of experience
Level of education
Number of years worked at the company

etc.

 

[BigMac]

Why would you ask him about going without sex anyway? How is that relevant for an interview? Oh my God.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

His words objectify women and imply that the podium girls are less than full human beings with their main use being to satisfy his sexual desires.

Words hurt. Jokes hurt. When we marginalize peopled with words and jokes we treat them differently. Women are subject to not only constant objectification but also to unwanted advances and attacks. They have to live everyday with caution and fear. They get paid 70 percent of what men do for the same work.

Do you have a detailed statistic on that, one that includes factors such as:

Number of hours that people work
Number of weekend days that people work
Number of overtime hours that people take
Number of sick days that people take
Number of paid holidays that people take
Level of experience
Level of education
Number of years worked at the company

etc.

Lots of reading if you really want:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gender+pay+gap