"Not less than the men"

[Libertine Seguros]

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"?

Haha, would be interesting to see how Bolt fares running up the Stelvio.

 

[theyoungest]

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.

Yeah, what originally got me into cycling was the fact that they race 200 km a day. Because that distance is sooo awesome. Now if it were, say, 150 km, I'd have hated the sport immediately.

 

[Arnout]

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).

This is all true.

But, in my opinion, tennis is not comparable to cycling. Tennis is as much about skill and finesse as anything else. Cycling, frankly, isn't. I guess we get the downhill argument now, but there is no denying that a major part of cycling is purely physical ability, more so than in football, tennis or most other sports.

And when people face the choice of watching sports, they will watch the top level. Why watch Europa League when you can watch Champions League?

Now, in an ideal world, we would have an endless amount of time. Most people don't, and more importantly, most people choose to spend available time otherwise. Watch some sport, if we are lucky some cycling. The people that actually actively go look for internet streams in Basque to watch a second tier race (compared to Tour) are few and far between.

Commercially, there is little to defend smaller male races. So where does female racing fit in, considering the level in small male races in terms of pure speed and length will always be higher than in a top female event?

At the moment, woman tennis is struggling. Not because they are women, but because at the moment the level is lower than in male tennis. That's just because there are no real stand outs in women tennis at the moment (Williams sisters still win when they want to and that says a lot...), as opposed to Nadal, Federer and now Djokovic in male tennis. The level is higher, we are more interested in that.

In cycling, this will not be temporary, but continuous. Simply because the level difference is dictated by physical ability.

 

[Arnout]

Yeah, what originally got me into cycling was the fact that they race 200 km a day. Because that distance is sooo awesome. Now if it were, say, 150 km, I'd have hated the sport immediately.

If you don't want to understand what I'm saying and start ridiculing a single word in a single sentence its maybe better to click the top right red cross in your screen instead, thanks.

 

[theyoungest]

If you don't want to understand what I'm saying and start ridiculing a single word in a single sentence its maybe better to click the top right red cross in your screen instead, thanks.

Well, if you didn't go on to say in your own post that women's racing will always be less awesome because it's half the distance, I'd have understood this reaction. Now I just think you don't know what point you're trying to make.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In cycling, this will not be temporary, but continuous. Simply because the level difference is dictated by physical ability.

The level difference is dictated by physical ability in biathlon too, but because the women's events are established (and distances are modified there too), then it's easy enough to judge women's events against the standard of other women's events, rather than judging the women's events against the men's product as we do with cycling.

The men are faster on the skis, they ski further and their events are longer. But few would consider that this makes Magdalena Neuner a worse biathlete than Tarjei Bø, because we judge Neuner based on her performances relative to her competition, and Bø based on his performances relative to his.

If the depth of field is comparable, their achievements can therefore be considered comparable if they obtain comparable results. The men going further or being physically superior has ceased to be of any importance to the discussion.

In cycling, the women's side of the game is not as well-developed and is seldom broadcast (I've seen every bit as much of women's biathlon as of men's), so we have little choice but to compare it to the men's events. And there isn't the same depth of competition among the women as there is in the men's events, so we're left with the perception that it's lesser, and the men going further or being physically superior remains part of the debate, because the women's events are not visible enough for us to compare them to themselves instead of to the more developed product, which has the inevitable consequence of making it look amateurish and therefore perceived as lesser.

Presentation is key, every bit as much as, if not more than, the physical superiority aspect.

 

[Arnout]

Well, if you didn't go on to say in your own post that women's racing will always be less awesome because it's half the distance, I'd have understood this reaction. Now I just think you don't know what point you're trying to make.

If you don't grasp the point, don't blame me please. Anyway, my whole post was saying women cycling will never appeal to mass public as it is by definition not as fast and record breaking as men cycling due to genetics.

The example of race distance to illustrate this was just that, an example. Ridiculing an example to counter an argument is not the way to actually counter the argument successfully.

That said, it's the way Wilders works, so it must be successful in some sense.

The level difference is dictated by physical ability in biathlon too, but because the women's events are established (and distances are modified there too), then it's easy enough to judge women's events against the standard of other women's events, rather than judging the women's events against the men's product as we do with cycling.

The men are faster on the skis, they ski further and their events are longer. But few would consider that this makes Magdalena Neuner a worse biathlete than Tarjei Bø, because we judge Neuner based on her performances relative to her competition, and Bø based on his performances relative to his.

If the depth of field is comparable, their achievements can therefore be considered comparable if they obtain comparable results. The men going further or being physically superior has ceased to be of any importance to the discussion.

In cycling, the women's side of the game is not as well-developed and is seldom broadcast (I've seen every bit as much of women's biathlon as of men's), so we have little choice but to compare it to the men's events. And there isn't the same depth of competition among the women as there is in the men's events, so we're left with the perception that it's lesser, and the men going further or being physically superior remains part of the debate, because the women's events are not visible enough for us to compare them to themselves instead of to the more developed product, which has the inevitable consequence of making it look amateurish and therefore perceived as lesser.

Presentation is key, every bit as much as, if not more than, the physical superiority aspect.

Well. Again, in a way you're right. In the Netherlands we do ice skating against the rest of the world (i.e. no-one) and women ice skating seems to be reasonably popular (and gets the same amount of TV time etc.). It's a mostly physical sport too.

But on a grand scale, to a public only casually interested, I'm not so sure, due to aforementioned reasons.

It could be a niche to a certain public (i.e. Cyclingnews forummers, the hardcore cycling fans). In my opinion its not enough to professionalize the sport and as argued correctly by some other people trying to professionalize will only make gaps bigger (gaps between getting minimum wage and not getting wage that is).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem is that in order to professionalise, there needs to be the need and want to from the UCI. They may be required to provide parachute payments; they would also be required to stump up money to safeguard many key races and to raise the profile by way of TV rights and promotion. The individual sponsors are often too regional, owing to the current low profile. They may safeguard an individual race or fund a team, but it won't safeguard or develop the sport, especially not if it's a team (as that will only exacerbate the problem by further concentrating the power into the hands of a small handful of teams.

As it is, there is clearly no desire on the UCI's part to do so, and no interest on the part of the TV companies to broadcast the racing as it is, without the injection of a bit more professionalism, so progress will be stunted.

 

[Freddythefrog]

....

...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

Golden and true. Also trying hard to resist !

** edited by mod ***

 

[User Guide]

Should we have a thread where we could share ideas for promoting and improving womens cycling or am I being naive and will end up as "not less than men" 2.0 ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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



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

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.



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

Appreciate the reply - and apologies, you did make that distinction clear.

Must admit, while still fotos might work for me I don't actually believe I find anything from watching women on TV or (dare I say it...) in the flesh.
I just look at them as cyclists.

Golden and true. Also trying hard to resist !

Question - could the podium be improved if the winner also got a wooden club to enhance the "dream" that after he has finished waving to the crowd, he sets off for the cave (aka hotel) with the two new slaves gifted to him, staggering around in their high heels so that they cannot run off ?

This is a point that Blutto astutely hinted at earlier.

As much as it pains me to admit it - Podium Girls have a negative effect on the perception of womens role within cycling.

 

[Nielsa]

As much as it pains me to admit it - Podium Girls have a negative effect on the perception of womens role within cycling.

I love watching podium girls, (whoever designed the Danish podium girl dresses, you are a naughty person!) but, yeah.

In the 2010 skiing World Champs in Norway they started having men and women doing the medal presentation (and sometimes only men). This way we dudes get to ogle pretty women as well as rising above some pre-1920's era societal standards. And women viewers get to ogle some handsome young men in tight suits.

It really doesn't take much of a change, just have one podium girl for the kisses and one podium guy to bring the champagne. (But not in hot pants please.)

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

If you don't grasp the point, don't blame me please. Anyway, my whole post was saying women cycling will never appeal to mass public as it is by definition not as fast and record breaking as men cycling due to genetics.

Yet strangely enough welterweight and middleweight boxing are currently much more highly regarded by boxing fans than heavyweight boxing, even though "due to genetics" smaller guys are never going to hit as hard as bigger guys or take a shot as well. And if you put one of the two guys universally regarded as the best boxers in the world in the ring with a merely good heavyweight, they'd get pounded flat.

I guess those boxing fans just don't understand "common sense". Or, I suppose there's always the other option, which is that you are confusing current social attitudes with the universal, natural, unchangeable way of the world.

 

[Irish2009]

Should we have a thread where we could share ideas for promoting and improving womens cycling or am I being naive and will end up as "not less than men" 2.0 ?

The fact that this thread went down the route it did shows that there is not much love for a certain section of cycle sport here. Certain aspects of the thread have made me realise that most of the people here have not got a passion for all things cycling but a narrow view of what cycling is, each to their own I guess.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

As much as it pains me to admit it - Podium Girls have a negative effect on the perception of womens role within cycling.

It's impossible to seriously argue with that. Podium girls, as an institution, are an embarrassing anachronism. Less so than the girls with the round cards in boxing, but that's only degrees of the same thing.

 

[phanatic]

Should we have a thread where we could share ideas for promoting and improving womens cycling or am I being naive and will end up as "not less than men" 2.0 ?

You can but first you have to ask who wants to watch and target them. I don't know, but it would be a good discussion. Tennis, the Olympics and many track and field events do a terrific job of putting men and women's performances side by side, but this is much more difficult in team sports that are much more time consuming. One possibility is to have women start earlier, as marathons do. Also, off days during GTs might work for a women's one day race.

Aside from the timing of the event, one big obstacle is the role of emulation and appreciation in watching sports. Men want to watch athletes whose excellence they can in some way aspire to, or whose pains and difficulties they can recognize and feel sympathy with; for many men, emulation of women athletes isn't possible. Rather than shame them, as Ryo hilariously got hit with merely for disagreeing with one statement, the entertainment value must be presented to them at a time they are willing to watch (that part can't be argued).

 

[phanatic]

It's impossible to seriously argue with that. Podium girls, as an institution, are an embarrassing anachronism.

No, they're still beautiful, and the winners are still heroic. Our humanity is not yet anachronistic.

 

[joe_papp]

Supply and demand really. If just as many spectators show up for the women's race and just as many tune in on it on TV, then they are equal. The interest of the public decides it. Always have been that way. U cant force ppl to enjoy wathing the women's race eqully much as they do enjoy the men's race

Agree wholeheartedly with you.

If women's professional cycling was a viable sponsorship vehicle for major companies to promote their goods or services, then they would be promoting their goods and services via women's cycling and there would be more teams paying higher wages. But that's not where it is right now, and a minimum wage will only decrease opportunities to compete by driving away the teams that currently make up at least a quarter of the peloton but don't pay salaries (or better said, by eliminating the unpaid rider positions scattered throughout various teams in the peloton).

And as I said previously, the women also harm themselves by agreeing to ride for-free as "professionals."

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

No, they're still beautiful, and the winners are still heroic. Our humanity is not yet anachronistic.

Ah, heroism for men, beauty for women.

 

[Maxiton]

Any reason why women can't be promoted as heroes? Nope. No reason. So why aren't they?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Any reason why women can't be promoted as heroes? Nope. No reason. So why aren't they?

Because if they're women they're not heroes, they're heroines, as there is an archaic gender divide in that word?

 

[theyoungest]

If you don't grasp the point, don't blame me please. Anyway, my whole post was saying women cycling will never appeal to mass public as it is by definition not as fast and record breaking as men cycling due to genetics.

What's the difference in that sense with, say, women's track and field?

The example of race distance to illustrate this was just that, an example. Ridiculing an example to counter an argument is not the way to actually counter the argument successfully.

It's a way to point out an essential flaw in your line of argument.

That said, it's the way Wilders works, so it must be successful in some sense.

That's right. Because Wilders understands some basic debating skills.

 

[Nielsa]

Because if they're women they're not heroes, they're heroines, as there is an archaic gender divide in that word?

Depends on the language, "hero" is gender neutral in some languages. Anyway for most(all?) western languages you have a point.

Some languages did recently (last 40 years or so) make all profession words gender neutral. E.g. actor/actress merged into actor for both genders. This happened for the exact reason you mentioned - getting rid of archaic gender divides. Imagine, when speaking English, to have to say doctor and "doctress" or driver and "driverine."

 

[El Pistolero]

Depends on the language, "hero" is gender neutral in some languages. Some languages did recently (last 40 years or so) make all profession words gender neutral. E.g. actor/actress merged into actor for both genders.

This happened for the exact reason that you say - getting rid of archaic gender divides. Imagine, when speaking English, having to say doctor and "doctress" or driver and "driverine."

There's still the word Mankind however

Humankind can be used as well, but that sounds silly.

 

[Maxiton]

Because if they're women they're not heroes, they're heroines, as there is an archaic gender divide in that word?

"heroine" can go away in favor of "hero" just as quickly as "actress" did in favor of "actor". The question I'm asking is, why aren't women promoted as heroic figures? There certainly is no shortage of female heroes, in sport and otherwise, so why aren't they put forward as such?