"Not less than the men"

[Cycle Chic]

Yours is probably the most thoughtful post we've had here. In the latter variety of knuckle-dragging you cite, I couldn't help but feel you were referring to me, since I was I think the only one putting forth an argument even close to that. So i'd like to draw a distinction between what you're referring to and what I said.

I want to live in a world where the erotic is frankly acknowledged and experienced as something healthy and wholesome. Of course, we don't live in such a world (excepting maybe the Scandinavian countries) and so my desire stands in clear contrast to the shame and degradation that attends much of women's sports marketing, such as when female cyclists pose for cheesy magazines, and pretty much the whole of beach volleyball.

Cycling is arguably among the most homoerotic of sports and in any case there is no denying a certain erotic component to athletics in general. Indeed, the objection to women's participation in sports by so many "knuckledraggers" may stem in part from the sense of shame and general puritanism that still forms a powerful undertow in the Western world, most especially in certain corners of it - no need to name them, just look for the cross and measure the shadow it casts there.

Women's cycling can be fantastic precisely because of "the skill, excitement, guts, panache, tactics, ingenuity" that can sometimes be found there. None of that is in any way diminished by acknowledging also an appreciation of what amounts to the physical and spiritual vitality of female athletes - which is and always will be sexy.

...and this person has seriously lost it - wrong Forum mate - and an embarassment to cyclists !!

 

[Polyarmour]

Personally I like watching the women race when they show it on television.

But I'm always amazed at the low numbers of women turning up for our local Saturday race. 1 woman for every 30 guys I would say is the ratio. So I wonder about the grassroots support for womens cycling? For some reason women themselves aren't as interested in cycling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...and this person has seriously lost it - wrong Forum mate - and an embarassment to cyclists !!

Why?
I am not saying that Maxitons point is correct - in fact I am not sure what to make of it, part of it rings true, part of it doesn't.

But why would 1 persons view be an "embarrassed to cyclists" and why have they "lost it" for giving their view on why they watch sports?


@Maxiton - As I mentioned above -I am not quite sure where I am on this, so i'll pose a question.

Sure, I find certain women cyclists appealing and sexy - on and off the bike.
However if that was the only reason people watched sport then wouldn't people watch the gender that they find appealing - ie for me watch more ladies cycling than mens?

Personally I like watching the women race when they show it on television.

But I'm always amazed at the low numbers of women turning up for our local Saturday race. 1 woman for every 30 guys I would say is the ratio. So I wonder about the grassroots support for womens cycling? For some reason women themselves aren't as interested in cycling.

Good point - this is kindof back to the 'Chicken & Egg' position.

If the sport does not promote ladies cycling (either from the top down, or bottom up) then the numbers will be low at the entry point.

Many womens cycling events I have seen at local level are merely after thoughts to the main mens events.
And if there are not enough women the are put in with the men - which will not encourage the sport.

This in turn leads to another position often taken on womens cycling - that the quality in numbers or competition is much less than the mens. Of course it is when it is not promoted and nurtured.

 

[blutto]

....the problem which may be the basis for the lack of women in cycling?...

....Maxiton may have unwittingly ( or not ? ) offered a clue when he said the following....Cycling is arguably among the most homoerotic of sports ....and given the way in which many of the posters on this thread exhibit a very strange inability to constructively interact with women ( reducing them to simple sex objects, which seems the overwhelmingly popular default position here, does not show an ability to relate to women in a reasonable manner ) maybe women look at this mob of sexually confused/repressed individuals and quite simply decide they have better things to do with their lives....like hang with some grownups and lead lives that could broadly be defined as mature/adult....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Cycle Chic]

"I want to live in a world where the erotic is frankly acknowledged and experienced as something healthy and wholesome" by Maxiweirdo

And what the f**k has this got to do with cycling !! weirdo !!

 

[Boeing]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"I want to live in a world where the erotic is frankly acknowledged and experienced as something healthy and wholesome" by Maxiweirdo

And what the f**k has this got to do with cycling !! weirdo !!

Simply, because they were asked.

I may not quite follow the quoted Maxiton piece - but it certainly isn't weird.

There isn't much difference between calling that weird and some of the sexist ill informed remarks at women.

 

[blutto]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[blutto]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that link. If you have any more links, post 'em here!

http://www.youtube.com/user/girdon2009
Go to this channel and there are more videos of Giro Donne...i think i have posted most of the stages of this year's edition here on this forum.

 

[theyoungest]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[blutto]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Arnout]

In a world where the majority of people doesn't care about cycling and 95% of the rest of the people only care about the Tour and if we are lucky the Giro and some classics, there is no space for women cycling.

Why do people watch cycling? I think because of the heroism, the 21 days riding in a row, 200km per day and multiple mountains a day for some of those days.

In women cycling everything will be half that. This won't change that much, simply has to do with body atonomy. It will always be less awesome than men cycling.

So will people watch, if casual cycling fans can choose to watch Paris - Nice or women cycling, they will choose the former, as it is closer to the real thing.

Nothing to do with sexism, just common sense.

 

[blutto]

In a world where the majority of people doesn't care about cycling and 95% of the rest of the people only care about the Tour and if we are lucky the Giro and some classics, there is no space for women cycling.

Why do people watch cycling? I think because of the heroism, the 21 days riding in a row, 200km per day and multiple mountains a day for some of those days.

In women cycling everything will be half that. This won't change that much, simply has to do with body atonomy. It will always be less awesome than men cycling.

So will people watch, if casual cycling fans can choose to watch Paris - Nice or women cycling, they will choose the former, as it is closer to the real thing.

Nothing to do with sexism, just common sense.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

...though to be fair when applying this quote to what seems to go for common sense in far too many parts of this thread we should amend the age to something closer to age twelve...you know that age where girls are still kinda icky and getting scarey because they make you feel weird and you don't know what to do so just to be safe you run away and make up some story later when you're back safe with the guys and you can indulge in cool talk about shiny baubles and lycra and stuff and of course no girls allowed....

Cheers

blutto

 

[User Guide]

In a world where the majority of people doesn't care about cycling and 95% of the rest of the people only care about the Tour and if we are lucky the Giro and some classics, there is no space for women cycling.

Why do people watch cycling? I think because of the heroism, the 21 days riding in a row, 200km per day and multiple mountains a day for some of those days.

In women cycling everything will be half that. This won't change that much, simply has to do with body atonomy. It will always be less awesome than men cycling.

So will people watch, if casual cycling fans can choose to watch Paris - Nice or women cycling, they will choose the former, as it is closer to the real thing.

Nothing to do with sexism, just common sense.

Except most of those 21 days and most of those 200k are controlled and contrived,because womens races have less days and shorter distances they are more attacking more exciting.Equating distance and or strength as any measure of excitement achievment or "awesomeness" is just plain silly.
In athletics is 200m twice as awesome as the 100m ??? the 5000m 50 times as awesome??

 

[The Hitch]

Did Usain Bolt run faster than the women's peloton for 140km too?

Thats not the best way to look at it because obviously the women have machines so will go faster.

The best way to look at it is "how much of Bolts 100m course had 10% grades"?

 

[blutto]

Except most of those 21 days and most of those 200k are controlled and contrived,because womens races have less days and shorter distances they are more attacking more exciting.Equating distance and or strength as any measure of excitement achievment or "awesomeness" is just plain silly.
In athletics is 200m twice as awesome as the 100m ??? the 5000m 50 times as awesome??

...for the luv of gawd!!!!....why are you introducing like quantifiable number type things here???...this thread is about hormones, homoeroticism, sense ( both most common and definitely not so common...the latter which some call weird...I call it brilliant )...

...so please stand back at a safe distance and watch the fun...but please don't even think of trying to introduce a sintilla of reasonableness into this thread...because we are well on our way to creating the dumbest thread ever seen on these august pages....we are on a mission!!!!...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Arnout]

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

...though to be fair when applying this quote to what seems to go for common sense in far too many parts of this thread we should amend the age to something closer to age twelve...you know that age where girls are still kinda icky and getting scarey because they make you feel weird and you don't know what to do so just to be safe you run away and make up some story later when you're back safe with the guys and you can indulge in cool talk about shiny baubles and lycra and stuff and of course no girls allowed....

Cheers

blutto

This, my friend, is just a collection of characters in some random order and to me it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Arnout]

Except most of those 21 days and most of those 200k are controlled and contrived,because womens races have less days and shorter distances they are more attacking more exciting.Equating distance and or strength as any measure of excitement achievment or "awesomeness" is just plain silly.
In athletics is 200m twice as awesome as the 100m ??? the 5000m 50 times as awesome??

First, if women races are professionalized (given resources are there) we will see the same thing happening: more organization, more equal level (as more women are competing, more controlled racing as a result. Controlled racing often is "not being able to go any faster than the opponent too".

Second, comparing sprints with endurance in this manner makes as much sense as the ramblings of that other guy. In sprints, it's all about explosion? Maybe that's why the 100m, the shortest distance, is often seen as the greatest in the same way as we see the longest/toughest as the greatest in cycling?

You can compare cycling with the marathon. In that case, the full one is viewed as more prestigious than the half one...

Also, you might know that in the Netherlands we arguably have the best woman cyclist of the last couple of years. Nobody gives a flying ****.

In a logical world, in a sport with potential as viewer sport but still dominated by one person, the people of that country should watch massively as they are winning in that brilliant sport. Trust me, we don't.

We did watch men's cycling even when we only had Michael Boogerd at the top level. It's because it's more appealing as a sport.

 

[Irish2009]

Well I agree with Bassoni, women professional riders should be entitled to a minimum wage.

 

[blutto]

This, my friend, is just a collection of characters in some random order and to me it makes no sense whatsoever.

...your problem is that you are probably applying that bog standard common sense you seem to rely on to something that is stone cold genius...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Maxiton]

Sorry to be a bit late in getting back to this. Weirdos keep late hours.

<snip>
@Maxiton - As I mentioned above -I am not quite sure where I am on this, so i'll pose a question.

Sure, I find certain women cyclists appealing and sexy - on and off the bike.
However if that was the only reason people watched sport then wouldn't people watch the gender that they find appealing - ie for me watch more ladies cycling than mens?
<snip>

No one said anything about anything being the only reason people watch sport. What I said was

Women's cycling can be fantastic precisely because of "the skill, excitement, guts, panache, tactics, ingenuity" that can sometimes be found there. None of that is in any way diminished by acknowledging also an appreciation of what amounts to the physical and spiritual vitality of female athletes - which is and always will be sexy.

So, in other words, acknowledge what already is, and see that as an added enhancement, or one more thing to like, about women's sport, particularly cycling.

Sport is a world fraught with erotic tensions and possibilities. This may account for much of the resistance to women's participation, but it can also be something to appreciate, once the resistance is overcome. Women's participation in sport, and the public's enthusiasm for and genuine enjoyment of it (particularly men) - once they get there - is liberating for both women and men.

This is definitely not a new idea. But the business world has no idea how to make money from it without trying to tart it up or cheapen it or in some way fetishize it. They don't get it - or more likely they do get it, at least unconsciously - and thus they don't promote it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/girdon2009
Go to this channel and there are more videos of Giro Donne...i think i have posted most of the stages of this year's edition here on this forum.

Thanks for that. I must have missed that thread/post. Cheers.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Why do people watch cycling? I think because of the heroism, the 21 days riding in a row, 200km per day and multiple mountains a day for some of those days.

In women cycling everything will be half that. This won't change that much, simply has to do with body atonomy. It will always be less awesome than men cycling.

The "ten day maximum for a race" and "100km average maximum" are arbitrary rules brought in by the UCI, nothing to do with women's physical limitations. Also, some of those stages were multiple mountains a day. The women were also the first to tackle Monte Zoncolán, although they did it from Sutrio.

And while the women may not tackle the same distances or the same courses, what's to say it can't be as awesome as the men? In most sports, the women do suffer more from a lack of depth (example: Marit Bjørgen may assemble more world championships than any of the men, but in many events the field had been thinned to her, Kowalczyk and Johaug with Kalla trying to cling on very early on), which I think is the problem more than the lack of equality in terms of physical condition. In sports where the men's and women's fields have comparable depth, the women don't come across so negatively in comparison, because it's easier to judge women's events vs. other women's events in the sport, rather than judging the women's events vs. those of the men (examples: the Wililams sisters vs. Roger Federer, or the biathletes. The Russians actually put the women's relay on last at the World Championships because it was a marquee event for their team, in theory - they had a disaster on the day. People like Tora Berger and Magdalena Neuner put in performances that inspire awe and create intensity and incredible excitement, and at no point does anybody pause and think that it is any less awesome or exciting because Tarjei Bø or Emil Hegle Svendsen would dust them in a head to head).