BoB's gone, here's why

[Irondan]

All,

In light of Cycling News ever expanding coverage of Women's Cycling, the thread "Babe's on Bikes" has met it's timely end. We have been asked by Cycling News to remove the thread, as it objectifies women and is offensive to almost everyone, save for a few. To mitigate the risk of continuing to alienate our women readers, it was decided that the long running thread has run it's course.

The ownership group of the CN website and our beloved forums thought that the time is right to end this chapter in forum history. As this was an owners decision, please keep any and all comments limited to this thread and not the moderation thread.

Cheers

 

[joshjevans]

Following Irondan's words, I'd like to add:

"There is no space for this type of thread whilst in the midst of trying to expand our women's cycling coverage and enhance the stature of women's cycling as a whole. The thread goes counter to this aim and only serves to alienate our female friendly audience. I can't see that it has any purpose other than to objectify women."

I hope you all understand, but please don't hesitate to get in touch with me should you wish to discuss further.

Enjoy the final days of the Giro all!

 

[StryderHells]

Good decision by all involved

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

The right move!

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anyone ever notice how many views that thread got?

 

[RedheadDane]

Personally I wasn't offended by that thread.

Though I did find it a bit silly that a thread titled Babes on Bikes was more or less taken over by pictures of ladies posing next to bikes.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

Personally I wasn't offended by that thread.

Though I did find it a bit silly that a thread titled Babes on Bikes was more or less taken over by pictures of ladies posing next to bikes.

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

Examples;

Yesterday;

Today;

I'll look forward to compliance from top management.

 

[RedheadDane]

Surely the worst part about this, is that she's wearing sleeve-less...

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Personally I wasn't offended by that thread.

Though I did find it a bit silly that a thread titled Babes on Bikes was more or less taken over by pictures of ladies posing next to bikes.

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

Examples;

Yesterday;

Today;

I'll look forward to compliance from top management.

Maybe they'll reopen the BoB thread for you if you open a men's equivalent thread.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Jeez, I forget, was BoB just under, or over FIVE MILLION views? Pathetic cop out, pc gone mad.

*waves two middle fingers at the decision takers*

 

[Random Direction]

Good move.


Mods - can I get the selfie I posted back?

 

[kwikki]

Good news. Nice to think that women can be viewed as something other than sex objects.

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

...

This comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Jeez, I forget, was BoB just under, or over FIVE MILLION views? Pathetic cop out, pc gone mad.

*waves two middle fingers at the decision takers*

So classy. Your point, though?

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Personally I wasn't offended by that thread.

Though I did find it a bit silly that a thread titled Babes on Bikes was more or less taken over by pictures of ladies posing next to bikes.

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

Examples;

Yesterday;

Today;

I'll look forward to compliance from top management.

Maybe they'll reopen the BoB thread for you if you open a men's equivalent thread.

It is already there and has been so for quite some time. IIRC it's called Men on Machines.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

...

This comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Jeez, I forget, was BoB just under, or over FIVE MILLION views? Pathetic cop out, pc gone mad.

*waves two middle fingers at the decision takers*

So classy. Your point, though?

More sense than removing the thread. It's quite telling the suits viewed the thread as objectifying women rather than celebrating them.

What's next..... only show ladies riding side saddle? I can imagine there's for more cafe threads that should be deleted with current managements mindset.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This is not a black and white issue the way you want to claim it to be. There is a middle ground between Victorian-style puritanism that you sarcastically bewail with your exaggerated censorship photo-cropping as if this is some kind of human rights issue, and the thread that's been removed. Nobody's saying you're wrong to enjoy those photos. Or even to post them, believe it or not. Just that, if the site wants to increase its focus on women's cycling and wants itself to be taken seriously in its attempts to promote women's cycling, then it's counter-productive to have the main focus on women on the board to be the BoB thread. They're not saying you can only crop photos to ensure we don't see women in figure-hugging lycra, or only riding side-saddle, or whatever you want to claim. They're not going to censor, say, race photos since the site is about bike racing. Saying the BoB thread is "celebrating" rather than "objectifying" the women doesn't wash, because let's face it, what pray tell is it about these women that you are celebrating?

 

[aphronesis]

Or, if the site chose to ah, "celebrate" men that way, many fledgling male cycling enthusiasts (customers) might feel themselves judged and excluded.

And Foxxy's point stands: all the people saying more clicks equals more business seem to miss that it doesn't mean "female" business. Of course the market/money don't care, but it's nonetheless interesting when political values break down.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re: Re:

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

...

This comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Jeez, I forget, was BoB just under, or over FIVE MILLION views? Pathetic cop out, pc gone mad.

*waves two middle fingers at the decision takers*

So classy. Your point, though?

If it needs to be explained to you.... Totally on the same page as Scott, for once.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

...

This comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Jeez, I forget, was BoB just under, or over FIVE MILLION views? Pathetic cop out, pc gone mad.

*waves two middle fingers at the decision takers*

So classy. Your point, though?

If it needs to be explained to you.... Totally on the same page as Scott, for once.

.....yup....agreed...

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

I'v been bothered since the days of wool kits regarding lycra cycling apparel objectifying cyclists, both men and women. I mean, after all, both the ladies and men are wearing very revealing clothing that is really nothing more than colorful underwear.

Since this site undoubtedly wishes to be consistent, inclusive and above all, politically correct, I'm going to go ahead and demand Cyclingnews crop all posted photos for anything below the waist for both men and women and any photos showing the female breasts (which are awful).

...

This comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Jeez, I forget, was BoB just under, or over FIVE MILLION views? Pathetic cop out, pc gone mad.

*waves two middle fingers at the decision takers*

So classy. Your point, though?

If it needs to be explained to you.... Totally on the same page as Scott, for once.

.....yup....agreed...

Cheers

Oh man this is getting out of control. You guys agreed with Scott.

I agree to the agreed.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Off the rails.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Good decision!

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

This is not a black and white issue the way you want to claim it to be. There is a middle ground between Victorian-style puritanism that you sarcastically bewail with your exaggerated censorship photo-cropping as if this is some kind of human rights issue, and the thread that's been removed. Nobody's saying you're wrong to enjoy those photos. Or even to post them, believe it or not. Just that, if the site wants to increase its focus on women's cycling and wants itself to be taken seriously in its attempts to promote women's cycling, then it's counter-productive to have the main focus on women on the board to be the BoB thread. They're not saying you can only crop photos to ensure we don't see women in figure-hugging lycra, or only riding side-saddle, or whatever you want to claim. They're not going to censor, say, race photos since the site is about bike racing. Saying the BoB thread is "celebrating" rather than "objectifying" the women doesn't wash, because let's face it, what pray tell is it about these women that you are celebrating?

I celebrate the female form without apology. On a bike particularly. There was no nudity there and as Alpe pointed out in another thread.... there are far more provocative photos in magazines that cater only to women (Cosmopolitan, et al).

The position of the suits is absurd, reeks of political correctness and is simply silly. There are many other places regulars of this site can and will go. So if the goal is to turn over viewership then this is a good way to do it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So your celebration is of women as an object to be physically appreciated. It's no surprise if people see it as objectification even if they aren't offended by it.

You seem to act like you feel your rights are being trampled by the removal of the thread, but it's not even like the pictures posted were the problem. It was the ongoing theme of the thread that the 'suits' as you deride them saw as the problem. One of the big points that was used in the talk of the sexism debate in British cycling and Victoria Pendleton having done those raunchy photoshoots a few years ago was that she had chosen how to manage her image and it was her choice to pose that way. Which is of course true.

However, as forum users for CN we are more or less at their behest to follow their rules since they justifiably want to have a say in what people can and can't say on their site. They have to manage their own image too. CN's choices until recently in how to manage their image tolerated the BoB thread, and the company have now made a decision that they want to manage their image another way, which is incompatible with the BoB thread. C'est la vie. Maybe they failed to recognize a reduction in traffic may make the site less attractive to advertisers and adversely affect hit count and forum membership, maybe they thought they can compensate that with an increase in traffic from people who didn't appreciate the previous stance, maybe they thought that they could make the site more attractive to advertisers across a broader spectrum of companies as a benefit from taking what is perceived as a more inclusive position. Unfortunately we weren't privy to those discussions so at the moment your suspicions can remain just that. I do know that the sudden appearance at the same time of an account that knows all about the pasts of members and the forum and starts suggesting everybody up sticks to velorooms (for about the 1000th time) is an interesting coincidence, of course.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

So your celebration is of women as an object to be physically appreciated. It's no surprise if people see it as objectification even if they aren't offended by it.

You seem to act like you feel your rights are being trampled by the removal of the thread, but it's not even like the pictures posted were the problem. It was the ongoing theme of the thread that the 'suits' as you deride them saw as the problem. One of the big points that was used in the talk of the sexism debate in British cycling and Victoria Pendleton having done those raunchy photoshoots a few years ago was that she had chosen how to manage her image and it was her choice to pose that way. Which is of course true.

However, as forum users for CN we are more or less at their behest to follow their rules since they justifiably want to have a say in what people can and can't say on their site. They have to manage their own image too. CN's choices until recently in how to manage their image tolerated the BoB thread, and the company have now made a decision that they want to manage their image another way, which is incompatible with the BoB thread. C'est la vie. Maybe they failed to recognize a reduction in traffic may make the site less attractive to advertisers and adversely affect hit count and forum membership, maybe they thought they can compensate that with an increase in traffic from people who didn't appreciate the previous stance, maybe they thought that they could make the site more attractive to advertisers across a broader spectrum of companies as a benefit from taking what is perceived as a more inclusive position. Unfortunately we weren't privy to those discussions so at the moment your suspicions can remain just that. I do know that the sudden appearance at the same time of an account that knows all about the pasts of members and the forum and starts suggesting everybody up sticks to velorooms (for about the 1000th time) is an interesting coincidence, of course.

Great post Libertine. Although the coincidence you speak of is just that, a coincidence.

At least as far as I know....