"Not less than the men"

[El Pistolero]

"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?

They are heroes. Unsung heroes. Female sport on average is watched a lot less than male sport. You can't find someone a hero if you barely watch their sport.

I'm sure that when Clijsters won the US Open in 2009 she was called a hero by some American newspapers though.

 

[phanatic]

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

"promoted"

 

[Maxiton]

"promoted"

Is English your second language?

 

[phanatic]

Is English your second language?

Do you understand connotation? Heroes are celebrated for their conquests. Promotion is what happens to schoolchildren and underlings and other servants.

 

[clipperton]

Do you understand connotation? Heroes are celebrated for their conquests. Promotion is what happens to schoolchildren and underlings and other servants.

well yeah, but it also happens to washing detergent and property developments and other commercial entities where there exists a vested interest in their public image. like an an athelete perchance?

 

[Maxiton]

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.

That's how I usually see them, too, but I'm talking about something a little more subtle than overt sexual titillation, anyway.

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.

Yes, it pains me, too, but you are right.

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.

This point about weight classes in boxing: it takes the whole "girls aren't fast enough" argument out in back and shoots it in the head.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Those sound like good ideas; however, I wouldn't discount the effectiveness of the media and marketing companies in creating a market for something and promoting it, once they turn their hands to it. The fact they haven't turned their hands to it in women's cycling says less about the sport, or the readiness of people to get into it, than it does about retrograde attitudes and social agendas among some sponsors and the cycling establishment. And I would argue further that no rider should be riding for free. The very idea is offensive.

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.

You make a good point, but certainly that isn't the only reason to watch sport, or even the main reason. Lots of people, including men, enjoy women's tennis, gymnastics, triathlon, track & field, swimming, and so on.

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).

If that's what you think, you need to go back to square one and read it all again.

well yeah, but it also happens to washing detergent and property developments and other commercial entities where there exists a vested interest in their public image. like an an athelete perchance?

Exactly. Which is why I thought maybe English is a second language for him.

 

[Martin318is]

well yeah, but it also happens to washing detergent and property developments and other commercial entities where there exists a vested interest in their public image. like an an athelete perchance?

Hence the term: "Promotional Material"

 

[auscyclefan94]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Kvinto]

It was mentioned the word "hero" (or "heroistic") several times in this thread. More heroistic or less heroistic... One thing I can tell in this case is:
The only display of a heroism in sports is when you're giving more than you thought you can and IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON YOUR PHISICAL POWER.

 

[phanatic]

Hence the term: "Promotional Material"

Right: material (as though being human were anachronistic). Products are not heroic. Promoters might be, and maybe we need a business thread to see what the proles can be duped into paying for. (no confession)

 

[phanatic]

You make a good point, but certainly that isn't the only reason to watch sport, or even the main reason. Lots of people, including men, enjoy women's tennis, gymnastics, triathlon, track & field, swimming, and so on.

These sports are often shown with men and women competing simultaneously (when I've seen them), so that both can be enjoyed. I don't know how women's sports fare when they are shown separately, though remember reading criticism that even with promotion of the sport, the viewership isn't really comparable, but that sort of discussion would be interesting.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Minimum wage

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.

Each to their own is fine provided "their own" doesn't prejudice others. The odd "schoolboy" spouting his mouth off on this thread is amusing, however when one recognises that there are a lot of girls attempting to make a livelihood out there and whilst an ex criminal or school lever with zero qualifications in a first job, is protected by law to receive a minimum wage http://www.fedee.com/minwage.html female cyclists somehow are deemed not worthy of such protection from exploitation. In 2011 it is a scandal. These are not self employed tradesmen. They are subject to the servant - master relationship that if tested in any employment tribunal would regard them as employees, except that many don't receive wages.

Cycling as a sport is deeply disturbing in its relation to gender. Imagine what would be the reaction if at the Olympics the men had a 100m sprint and the women were given a 50m version, the men a 4 x 400 metre relay to finish the Olympics preceded by a 3 x 300 for the girls, the men swam 50 m but the girls started part way along the pool at 25m! The prejudice is legislated in by the UCI. Add on a cycling press that mostly echoes much of the disturbing sentiment exhibited by many in this thread and one realises that no matter what any female does or achieves, she has no chance of accessing the coverage her exploits would garner were she male.

It is called a rigged market. Free market principles of supply and demand do not work in a rigged market.

But whoah what if one were male - somebody more informed can tell us but I quickly picked up this for a couple of years ago at http://www.velonorth.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=3519
"....Cyclists' wages were frozen from 2005 to 2008 and 10 percent was added to the minimum in 2008 for the 2009.

In 2009, the agreed-upon minimum wages were 33,000 euros ($46,200) for ProTour racers, 27,500 euros ($38,500) for Professional Continental racers, 26,700 euros ($37,380) for neo-professional ProTour racers and 23,000 euros ($32,200) for neo-professional riders in the Professional Continental ranks....."

It is straight forward prejudice - male cyclists and the rest of the population of Europe can be protected. Pat and the boys at the UCI deem that the girls are not worthy of support. Yet they are quite happy to extract money from the girls via tarrifs on promoters and teams and prizes to run their offices and the anti-dopping program. Strange that !

Anything else is tinkering around the edges - only the UCI can sort out this mess. Legislate - pro-tour teams must have a female team. World cup events must put on a female event. Minimum wage legislated.

Can I pay the plumber less because he sent round a female to fix my burst pipe. I think female plumbers are rubbish.

 

[Arnout]

Cycling as a sport is deeply disturbing in its relation to gender. Imagine what would be the reaction if at the Olympics the men had a 100m sprint and the women were given a 50m version, the men a 4 x 400 metre relay to finish the Olympics preceded by a 3 x 300 for the girls, the men swam 50 m but the girls started part way along the pool at 25m! The prejudice is legislated in by the UCI. Add on a cycling press that mostly echoes much of the disturbing sentiment exhibited by many in this thread and one realises that no matter what any female does or achieves, she has no chance of accessing the coverage her exploits would garner were she male.

Like best of 2 versus best of 3 in grand slams or 5km as longest distance in ice skating versus 10k for males? Nah... happens everywhere and no-one seems to care, least of which the women themselves.

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.

Now I'm not into boxing but that might have to do with it being more exciting? More maneuverable thus more quick surprises and such?

Now before I get the inevitable counter argument that women racing can be more exciting than men racing: of course. But its the same sport and when it manages to get more organized it will be as controlled as male bike racing, making it exactly the same but less.

Anyway, it seems that if you don't agree with the opinion to professionalize women cycling you are sexist, a Neanderthaler and what more. Only a few people actually care to elaborate on the possibilities (thanks Libertine Seguros), most of the others just rant against people not agreeing with them.

I find that more Neanderthalerish than me having an opinion, but anyway, might be the way the world rolls. I guess a lot of people here are vegetarian too, they also always get on my nerves with their moral superior you should stop eating meat nonsense too, dictacting what I should do or think or say

End of rant, back to argument. I don't have much more to say than what I already said in my previous posts.

I said that I don't see the business case (which made me homoerotic) and that I think people will be less interested in women cycling in general because its slower than male cycling (made me Neanderthaler). I stand by this. Sure, there are examples of women sports being as succesful (or nearly, whatever you want) as male sports in the same discipline and I actually gave the best example for it in the most comparable sports: Dutch attention to our second favorite sports behind male football is nearly equally divided between male ice skating and female ice skating.

Still, I don't see the global business case for woman cycling. If professionalized, it will be less fast than male cycling and the same in most other aspects. Now, money is never overly provided in cycling, and more importantly probably, TV time isn't either. When there isn't space for the Giro to show in all but a very limited amount of countries, why would women cycling make it? Without TV time, the only source of income (sponsor interest) is gone as we don't sell tickets. Which will mean the few teams that professionalize will kill of competition (which is already happening with Holland Bloeit to a certain extent).

I don't really believe in pushing it artificially. It shows that minor sports don't attract big audiences even when they get screen time.

So, in short, I don't see the business case and I think it will kill women cycling as we know it (which, judging by the comments of you guys is an exciting sports) without getting much in return. If that makes me a Neanderthaler, so be it.

 

[Arnout]

Ah, heroism for men, beauty for women.

That's the way the world rolls isn't it? Males and females are not similar. I may be called a sexist again but its reality. People pretending males and females are similar simply are wrong, ask any brain surgeon / sociologist / whatever.

It's genetics, males are hunter gatherers, females not. That shows even now where males seem to care more about how girls look (hunter part) and girls about how much the boy earns (the taking care part).

Will take some time for that to change still

 

[Arnout]

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


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


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

- Road cycling is more a sport of the masses than track cycling or field cycling which is practiced in a small number of countries, meaning that the audience that is actually interested is more homogeneous and more of a niche group. People actually watching niche sports will be very into that sports and watch everything regardless (like we do with looking up streams and such), big audience won't and will only care about the big events (in road cycling this is Tour de France obviously).

- Nah... I was saying races are not as long, not as hard and with less obstacles. You pick one of the three. It was supposed to be a general illustration of the difference as a whole, not merely the km part.

- He does. But he uses those skills to say things that don't make sense at all. Which doesn't make him a bad debater, but at the same time it makes him someone who says a lot of weird stuff, at least to me. Having success in debating and be appealing with it is something else than actually making sense, in my eyes.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Like best of 2 versus best of 3 in grand slams or 5km as longest distance in ice skating versus 10k for males? Nah... happens everywhere and no-one seems to care, least of which the women themselves.

I am glad you place yourself in a position of knowing what everyone thinks - that no-one seems to care. Certainly there are a lot of people out there who do not care. I imagine the majority of posters on this web site don't care either. Some people do. Some corporations do and some sports do. That is why Track & Field have a marathon for women like men. That is why swimming has matched events. That is why a number of corporate sponsors chose triathlon over cycling as their vehicle for sponsorship - triathlon made a marketing point of equality within their sport. It fitted with the views the sponsors held regarding the investment of their corporations money. It is why national governments legislated for equal wages or earlier to allow women to have the vote. But don't let those things get in the way of how you view yourself, the World and your view of what the rest of the World think. Oh and what was your summary point ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Each to their own is fine provided "their own" doesn't prejudice others.
<snipped for brevity>.

I wouldn't call the UCIs reluctance to have wage minimums for women as 'prejudiced'. (There lack of support towards womens cycling, certainly.)

Womens cycling is not yet in a position to support a minimum wage.
If one was applied now many teams would simply fold.

What is needed is better support for the sport - more races, better promotion, more exposure would help make the sport more viable and then a minimum wage could be considered.

That's the way the world rolls isn't it? Males and females are not similar. I may be called a sexist again but its reality. People pretending males and females are similar simply are wrong, ask any brain surgeon / sociologist / whatever.

It's genetics, males are hunter gatherers, females not. That shows even now where males seem to care more about how girls look (hunter part) and girls about how much the boy earns (the taking care part).

Will take some time for that to change still

Personally I detest any sports star or sporting accomplishment being referred to as heroic.

No argument from me that the sexes are different - however, if they do the same roles then they should be compensated the same.

 

[Arnout]

I am glad you place yourself in a position of knowing what everyone thinks - that no-one seems to care. Certainly there are a lot of people out there who do not care. I imagine the majority of posters on this web site don't care either. Some people do. Some corporations do and some sports do. That is why Track & Field have a marathon for women like men. That is why swimming has matched events. That is why a number of corporate sponsors chose triathlon over cycling as their vehicle for sponsorship - triathlon made a marketing point of equality within their sport. It fitted with the views the sponsors held regarding the investment of their corporations money. It is why national governments legislated for equal wages or earlier to allow women to have the vote. But don't let those things get in the way of how you view yourself, the World and your view of what the rest of the World think. Oh and what was your summary point ?

But still tennis is the best example of equality between men and women and there are major differences regarding rules in the biggest events. It's the same for ice skating in the Netherlands. I agree with you that it is good for a sport to equalize it as a marathon is supposed to be 41-something km, regardless of gender, I do not think it will impact general interest that much though.

Personally I detest any sports star or sporting accomplishment being referred to as heroic.

No argument from me that the sexes are different - however, if they do the same roles then they should be compensated the same.

Agreed. For me heroic is, knowing full well the difficulties and dangers beforehand, but still doing the action to save lives of other people or at least with the intention of doing so, not being the fastest in some sports events which in the bigger scheme of things is quite irrelevant in the end.

Heroes were the fire fighters on 9/11 or the pilot of the crashed Concorde that in the last moments of his life still had the brains and more importantly the nerves to avoid the hotel and crashing next to it, saving scores of lives. Not Igor Anton winning in his home town or Cadel Evans being a better TT'er than Andy Schleck.

In an ideal world for doing the same thing you would get paid the same. You run into the risk of communism / state control though and that is not my favorite way to run a country. I rather have some inequality instead to be honest. After all, the inequality between males and females are quite small compared to the inequalities between different parts of the world, and we accept that, too, because it is unrealistic to change that, its better to let it change and if it doesn't change itself the chances of a successful forced change are quite low (at least in case of development policy, which is remarkably unsuccessful).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Personally I detest any sports star or sporting accomplishment being referred to as heroic.

Perhaps an exception can be made for Gino Bartali?

 

[Arnout]

Perhaps an exception can be made for Gino Bartali?

Not for his sporting accomplishments though

 

[Freddythefrog]

minimum wage

I wouldn't call the UCIs reluctance to have wage minimums for women as 'prejudiced'.

Well just how else could you describe it when the UCI place themselves and their views superior to the national legislation for most European countries ?

Womens cycling is not yet in a position to support a minimum wage.
If one was applied now many teams would simply fold.

Not disagreeing. That is why the UCI need to mandate that pro-tour teams run a women's team if they are to get a licence. Certainly - a number of sponsors would then run away because undoubtedly for the guy at the top the "alpha male" idea is one that appeals. However, other sponsors would be attracted. Sadly I doubt that running female team would be a big decision to corporate sponsors either way. The fall-out from Lance sweeps too much before it.

What is needed is better support for the sport - more races, better promotion, more exposure would help make the sport more viable and then a minimum wage could be considered.

In 1987 Longo stood on top of the podium with Stephen Roche - an idea that would be alien should anyone propose it today. It is what monopolies do - strangle the opposition at birth. The cuckoo throws the other chicks out of the nest. Organic growth does not work - 30 years of working at it has gone not very far. This is/was always going to be so given the legislative framework imposed by the UCI.

 

[Arnout]

A few years ago, the Netherlands women football team reached the semi-finals of the European Championships. All of the Netherlands was very excited and we were all cheering (even though it was horrible to watch, tactic was 9 defenders and one striker for some reason). Semi-finals were broadcasted life on national TV, Nederland 1, equivalent to BBC1, actually just behind cycling - Vuelta mountain stage. Vuelta stage scored 700,000 viewers, the semi-finals: A dazzling 2.5 million or there about on Nederland 1 and a significant amount on Eurosport as well (who broadcasted the whole event).

So you would think, this is the ultimate chance to equalize. And so we tried. Several profesionall football teams started a women division, including the champion of the time. Summaries of women football were broadcasted every time on national television (not Nederland 1, but another free 2 view all acess channel).

Viewing figures? 30,000.

Appalling. It didn't improve with promotion and eventually the plug was pulled. At the same time, football teams started to close down their women division again, it costed money, no-one was watching either live or on telly and there were simply no benefits.

So even though there was a lot of attention, a massive kick-start, the lack of fundaments meant it was not to be. I've always argued that you cannot start a new cycling team a la Leopard or GreenEDGE or whatever and start in the ProTour immediately, as you have to prove there is a fundament, otherwise the efforts are often in vain. Which showed this year again, and same for Cervelo last year.

The only way to fundamentally improve a sport is organic growth, otherwise you will just kill off the sport by first being too ambitious and then pulling the plug.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well just how else could you describe it when the UCI place themselves and their views superior to the national legislation for most European countries ?

Are they?
I doubt it - teams are registered in various countries, who would have different legislation.

Not disagreeing. That is why the UCI need to mandate that pro-tour teams run a women's team if they are to get a licence. Certainly - a number of sponsors would then run away because undoubtedly for the guy at the top the "alpha male" idea is one that appeals. However, other sponsors would be attracted. Sadly I doubt that running female team would be a big decision to corporate sponsors either way. The fall-out from Lance sweeps too much before it.

Isn't the highlighted a gross a sexist statement!

Sponsors invest in teams if it gives them viable exposure.

In 1987 Longo stood on top of the podium with Stephen Roche - an idea that would be alien should anyone propose it today. It is what monopolies do - strangle the opposition at birth. The cuckoo throws the other chicks out of the nest. Organic growth does not work - 30 years of working at it has gone not very far. This is/was always going to be so given the legislative framework imposed by the UCI.

I don't get the monopolies/cuckoo analogy?

Unless you are suggesting that it is a planned move - that would involve the UCI to be competent, so...... no.

 

[Maxiton]

I wouldn't call the UCIs reluctance to have wage minimums for women as 'prejudiced'. (There lack of support towards womens cycling, certainly.)

Womens cycling is not yet in a position to support a minimum wage.
If one was applied now many teams would simply fold.

What is needed is better support for the sport - more races, better promotion, more exposure would help make the sport more viable and then a minimum wage could be considered.

Let's play a word substitution game.

Option #1:

I wouldn't call Alabama's reluctance to have wage minimums for women as 'prejudiced'. (Their lack of support towards women's job growth, certainly.)

Women's jobs are not yet in a position to support a minimum wage.
If one was applied now many companies would simply fold.

What is needed is better support for women's employment - more jobs, better promotion, more exposure would help make women's employment more viable and then a minimum wage could be considered.

Option #2:

I wouldn't call the country's reluctance to have wage minimums for Blacks as 'prejudiced'. (Their lack of support towards Blacks in general, certainly.)

Many companies are not are not yet in a position to support a minimum wage.
If one was applied now many companies would simply fold.

What is needed is better support for Blacks - more training, better schooling, more opportunity would help make Black employment more viable and then a minimum wage could be considered.

Would you find either of those statements acceptable? Or would you say, along with me, that companies must pay everyone according to the role performed, rather than according to sex or ethnicity? And if they can't do that, they should go out of business? Does that sound reasonable to you?

The best way to support women in cycling is to grant them and their sport the dignity of a living wage. And the best way to support the sport of cycling is to promote it, along with promoting the athletes who do it, men and women equally. If teams can't afford to pay their athletes, they should be made to fold.

Personally I detest any sports star or sporting accomplishment being referred to as heroic.

I can certainly understand that. But this is how sports popularity is manufactured - by selling it as an arena where transcendent endeavors are engaged in by transcendent beings. If they applied this to women's cycling, the same thing would happen - it would become more popular. But first they have to start paying them.

No argument from me that the sexes are different - however, if they do the same roles then they should be compensated the same.

That really is the bottom line.

 

[Mshengu]

Adopting a model similar to tennis would be better, let the events take place at the same time especially in the classics. It can be a womens Ronde in the morning, then the gentlemen's Ronde in the late afternoon. Alcohols starts flowing at early hours of the day