Podium Girls

[red_flanders]

Read an article this morning which gave me some pause. I'm generally a huge fan of podium girls, particularly in the Giro. But there's really nothing in this article I can argue with.

http://www.prettydamnedfast.com/blog/2015/7/5/nopodiumgirls?fb_action_ids=10153176050276859&fb_action_types=og.likes

It's probably worth me not getting a thrill of seeing beautiful women in this one place so my daughters can find one less place to see a fairly demeaning role for women. I'd rather they were racers than prizes.

I've certainly ogled and objectified women more than my fair share, and I don't really expect much to change. Certainly being a father of girls changes one's view. But for your consideration...

 

[jmdirt]

Read an article this morning which gave me some pause. I'm generally a huge fan of podium girls, particularly in the Giro. But there's really nothing in this article I can argue with.

http://www.prettydamnedfast.com/blog/2015/7/5/nopodiumgirls?fb_action_ids=10153176050276859&fb_action_types=og.likes

It's probably worth me not getting a thrill of seeing beautiful women in this one place so my daughters can find one less place to see a fairly demeaning role for women. I'd rather they were racers than prizes.

I've certainly ogled and objectified women more than my fair share, and I don't really expect much to change. Certainly being a father of girls changes one's view. But for your consideration...

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling. Using podium girls as an argument for "lesser" woman's racing weakens the argument. The objectifying of woman argument is a tough one for me too. If a beautiful woman is on the podium presenting an award, isn't that celebrating her beauty? Many of these models live nicely and enjoy what they do. Do they feel objectified? Is it our place to decide that for them?

 

[Brullnux]

Read an article this morning which gave me some pause. I'm generally a huge fan of podium girls, particularly in the Giro. But there's really nothing in this article I can argue with.

http://www.prettydamnedfast.com/blog/2015/7/5/nopodiumgirls?fb_action_ids=10153176050276859&fb_action_types=og.likes

It's probably worth me not getting a thrill of seeing beautiful women in this one place so my daughters can find one less place to see a fairly demeaning role for women. I'd rather they were racers than prizes.

I've certainly ogled and objectified women more than my fair share, and I don't really expect much to change. Certainly being a father of girls changes one's view. But for your consideration...

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling. Using podium girls as an argument for "lesser" woman's racing weakens the argument. The objectifying of woman argument is a tough one for me too. If a beautiful woman is on the podium presenting an award, isn't that celebrating her beauty? Many of these models live nicely and enjoy what they do. Do they feel objectified? Is it our place to decide that for them?

My opinion is: no podium girls or podium guys in women's racing to make men and women equally objectified.

 

[Merckx index]

We had this debate before, after the Sagan groping incident, when I suggested maybe it was time to end the podium girl tradition. It is a tough one, but one way to look at is to ask how you would feel if good-looking, attractively dressed men performed the same function at women’s races (as Brulinux suggests). I wouldn’t find it so much demeaning or objectifying their bodies as just silly. I mean, why bother? And at the end of the day, that’s how I feel about podium girls. It’s from a very old tradition that I would say has outgrown its usefulness. I’m sure many women like the possibility of earning money and possibly getting started in a modeling career, but they can no longer make the argument that there are so few other options open to them. They can get a real job.

And while we’re on the subject of women’s races, and athletics in general, I think it’s a big mistake for women to seek equality with men here. Physically, women on average simply aren’t as athletic as men, so why should they expect to be paid as much for lesser performances? The real problem, as I see it, is that women are basically going along with the idea that athletics are of supreme importance, rather than challenging this by emphasizing other aspects of humanity, some of which women on average are better at than men.

I also think the author of the article was somewhat hypocritical. She doesn't blame women for becoming podium girls, but blames cycling for maintaining the tradition. If you believe maintaining a tradition is wrong, then how can women who support that tradition by being podium girls not also be doing something wrong? I understand why the author was very careful not to blame the podium girls. She doesn't want to antagonize other women, and make them even less likely to support her cause, but in doing so she is putting practicality over honesty.

 

[ray j willings]

Merckx" Physically, women on average simply aren’t as athletic as men"

Women may not in most cases be as physically strong but they are certainly as athletic. There are many sports where Woman show as much Skill and physical capabilities as men. Have you seen some of the women Free climbers ? Have you seen some of the soccer skills ? have you seen the athletical ability's of woman Gymnast's , have you seen woman's boxing? I could on . Some of these woman have much more natural athletic ability than most men.

 

[Jspear]

Re:

Merckx" Physically, women on average simply aren’t as athletic as men"

Women may not in most cases be as physically strong but they are certainly as athletic. There are many sports where Woman show as much Skill and physical capabilities as men. Have you seen some of the women Free climbers ? Have you seen some of the soccer skills ? have you seen the athletical ability's of woman Gymnast's , have you seen woman's boxing? I could on . Some of these woman have much more natural athletic ability than most men.

This is very true. I think though, from a cycling perspective what Merckx stated is very true.

 

[red_flanders]

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling.

I agree, it's not part of the argument for me. I'd rather hang with a girl who rides than one who adorns the podium, but the main point for me is that the podium girl thing just serves no positive purpose and simply offers another bit of evidence to our girls that their value is their looks alone.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Merckx" Physically, women on average simply aren’t as athletic as men"

Women may not in most cases be as physically strong but they are certainly as athletic. There are many sports where Woman show as much Skill and physical capabilities as men. Have you seen some of the women Free climbers ? Have you seen some of the soccer skills ? have you seen the athletical ability's of woman Gymnast's , have you seen woman's boxing? I could on.

I consider athleticism to include a number of qualities, among which are:

Strength
Speed
Agility
Hand-eye coordination
Endurance
Awareness
Resistance to pain and discomfort

I think women on average are inferior to men on average in most of these aspects. Maybe not agility, considering women gymnasts (or I should say, girl gymnasts, because they generally lose it when they sexually mature, or soon after). But since evaluation of gymnasts is not objective (requires judges, rather than measuring time, distance, etc.), it’s difficult to tell. And success in gymnastics requires skills like strength and endurance that men are superior in, that’s why the men’s competitions have more individual events, and why most of the events are somewhat different (e.g., the rings competition requires great strength).

There are also special cases where women may have an advantage, e.g., in long distance swimming, where their layer of fat helps insulate them against the cold. I would think maybe in wrestling, too, as they have a lower center of gravity. But that advantage would be nullified by lesser strength for a woman of the same weight as a man.

Soccer? I don’t believe it, if the best women were as good as the best men, they would be playing with the men. Not to mention the recent women’s World Cup would have garnered much more attention than it actually did (compare the two threads in this forum). Same with boxing and MMA, pace Ronda Rousey. Trust me, if any woman in the world could get in the ring with Floyd Mayweather, it would have happened by now. Free climbing? I’m not qualified to judge, but certainly not climbing in general, men have accomplished some climbs that no women have.

Some of these woman have much more natural athletic ability than most men.

Sure, but that’s why I compared average to average. There is a great overlap, no denying that, but the average and best men exceed the average and best women.

And to return to my original point, simply debating this obscures the fact that there are things human beings can do where women, on average, are better than men. Society tends not to emphasize these as much, or at least not to glorify them.

The problem, IMO, is that when we originally evolved, survival was mostly about physical strength and other athletic skills, and this is largely why in most societies, men have predominated. Only relatively recently, as non-physical skills have become far more important, have women obtained equal rights, and even now, of course, they haven’t in many parts of the world.

All sports are basically a glorification of and return to our earlier days. I think there are enough positive aspects of sports to justify them, but we should keep in mind that inevitably worship of sports also means a celebration of male superiority. Women’s sports are fine, women who want to compete should certainly be able to, but lost in the fruitless attempt to keep up with men are all these other skills, far more important to survival in modern society, and in many of which women tend to excel more.

One example, I think, is being a team player. This can of course actually contribute to athletic success, but it's more of a requirement for a coach than an athlete, and I believe this is why women are finally making inroads as coaches in men's sports. Women, again, on average, are less competitive--I vs. you, I vs. the rest of the world--than men. This can be a negative in an individual sport, but in any team sport, competitiveness vs. other athletes on other teams has to be balanced with cooperation with one's own teammates.

 

[jmdirt]

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling.

I agree, it's not part of the argument for me. I'd rather hang with a girl who rides than one who adorns the podium, but the main point for me is that the podium girl thing just serves no positive purpose and simply offers another bit of evidence to our girls that their value is their looks alone.

Its your job as a parent to teach your girls that "looks" are just one of many ways to determine self worth. Should we encourage woman to stop being engineers because we don't want their value to be based on their intelligence alone? Some people look good, some run fast, some paint well, some sing well, some write code, some develop, some design.... celebrate you. That's not to say that one of those beautiful woman isn't also smart, etc.

 

[Merckx index]

Its your job as a parent to teach your girls that "looks" are just one of many ways to determine self worth. Should we encourage woman to stop being engineers because we don't want their value to be based on their intelligence alone? Some people look good, some run fast, some paint well, some sing well, some write code, some develop, some design.... celebrate you. That's not to say that one of those beautiful woman isn't also smart, etc.

The problem I have with this is that there isn't much one can do about looks. Some people are certainly more intelligent, more athletic, more practical, more artistic, more hard-working, better leaders, etc., than others, but these are also qualities (or are relevant to activities) that can be affected to a large degree by training. You aren't just born an engineer or scientist or writer or enterpreneur; you generally have to work hard to succeed at that. A lot of people certainly aren't cut out for these, no matter how hard they try, but very few among those who do have the talent will make it without a lot of effort.

Looks are not like that. Aside from cosmetic surgery, you're stuck with what you have. You might possibly make it in a looks-oriented profession, like acting (or its close cousin, TV journalism), without being very good-looking, but podium girls and the like are not about that. As far as I can see, it's pretty much all appearance--not necessarily great beauty but a kind of superficial flawlessness that is mostly genetic (flight attendants also come to mind here). Which means that encouraging children into livelihoods like these is to teach them to rely mostly on what they were born with, rather than what they can develop.

 

[red_flanders]

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling.

I agree, it's not part of the argument for me. I'd rather hang with a girl who rides than one who adorns the podium, but the main point for me is that the podium girl thing just serves no positive purpose and simply offers another bit of evidence to our girls that their value is their looks alone.

Its your job as a parent to teach your girls that "looks" are just one of many ways to determine self worth. Should we encourage woman to stop being engineers because we don't want their value to be based on their intelligence alone? Some people look good, some run fast, some paint well, some sing well, some write code, some develop, some design.... celebrate you. That's not to say that one of those beautiful woman isn't also smart, etc.

I agree, it is my job. I also think it's time to retire such a blatantly sexist practice.

When girls being judged only on their intelligence gets to be a problem, I'll happily address it. I can't wait. The difference is one of substance. Much like MLK dreamed of people being judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character, one can say the same of other outward appearances. We should be judged on our merits, not our appearance. Our culture can promote that or detract from that belief. This is a small way in which we say appearance matters over all. It's not the right thing, in my view.

 

[ray j willings]

Merckx all your observations are based on a mans strength over a woman's ..

take a look at the videos below and you will see that is the only advantage some men have over woman.

Women can be equally as good in every other aspect nurture not nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TjUp9oxc3s woman climber ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyO3sB4qDMo&feature=iv&src_vid=IB-itlQWZZA&annotation_id=annotation_4267372107 women football.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwMlf9Pe-Rk woman boxer

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Merckx" Physically, women on average simply aren’t as athletic as men"

Women may not in most cases be as physically strong but they are certainly as athletic. There are many sports where Woman show as much Skill and physical capabilities as men. Have you seen some of the women Free climbers ? Have you seen some of the soccer skills ? have you seen the athletical ability's of woman Gymnast's , have you seen woman's boxing? I could on.

I consider athleticism to include a number of qualities, among which are:

Strength
Speed
Agility
Hand-eye coordination
Endurance
Awareness
Resistance to pain and discomfort

I think women on average are inferior to men on average in most of these aspects. Maybe not agility, considering women gymnasts (or I should say, girl gymnasts, because they generally lose it when they sexually mature, or soon after). But since evaluation of gymnasts is not objective (requires judges, rather than measuring time, distance, etc.), it’s difficult to tell. And success in gymnastics requires skills like strength and endurance that men are superior in, that’s why the men’s competitions have more individual events, and why most of the events are somewhat different (e.g., the rings competition requires great strength).

There are also special cases where women may have an advantage, e.g., in long distance swimming, where their layer of fat helps insulate them against the cold. I would think maybe in wrestling, too, as they have a lower center of gravity. But that advantage would be nullified by lesser strength for a woman of the same weight as a man.

Soccer? I don’t believe it, if the best women were as good as the best men, they would be playing with the men. Not to mention the recent women’s World Cup would have garnered much more attention than it actually did (compare the two threads in this forum). Same with boxing and MMA, pace Ronda Rousey. Trust me, if any woman in the world could get in the ring with Floyd Mayweather, it would have happened by now. Free climbing? I’m not qualified to judge, but certainly not climbing in general, men have accomplished some climbs that no women have.

Some of these woman have much more natural athletic ability than most men.

Sure, but that’s why I compared average to average. There is a great overlap, no denying that, but the average and best men exceed the average and best women.

And to return to my original point, simply debating this obscures the fact that there are things human beings can do where women, on average, are better than men. Society tends not to emphasize these as much, or at least not to glorify them.

The problem, IMO, is that when we originally evolved, survival was mostly about physical strength and other athletic skills, and this is largely why in most societies, men have predominated. Only relatively recently, as non-physical skills have become far more important, have women obtained equal rights, and even now, of course, they haven’t in many parts of the world.

All sports are basically a glorification of and return to our earlier days. I think there are enough positive aspects of sports to justify them, but we should keep in mind that inevitably worship of sports also means a celebration of male superiority. Women’s sports are fine, women who want to compete should certainly be able to, but lost in the fruitless attempt to keep up with men are all these other skills, far more important to survival in modern society, and in many of which women tend to excel more.

One example, I think, is being a team player. This can of course actually contribute to athletic success, but it's more of a requirement for a coach than an athlete, and I believe this is why women are finally making inroads as coaches in men's sports. Women, again, on average, are less competitive--I vs. you, I vs. the rest of the world--than men. This can be a negative in an individual sport, but in any team sport, competitiveness vs. other athletes on other teams has to be balanced with cooperation with one's own teammates.

When a man gives birth to another human being, that's when I'll agree that men are stronger than women. Until then, I disagree with everything except for physical strength. Rhonda Rousy is quickly closing that gap...

 

[jmdirt]

Its your job as a parent to teach your girls that "looks" are just one of many ways to determine self worth. Should we encourage woman to stop being engineers because we don't want their value to be based on their intelligence alone? Some people look good, some run fast, some paint well, some sing well, some write code, some develop, some design.... celebrate you. That's not to say that one of those beautiful woman isn't also smart, etc.

The problem I have with this is that there isn't much one can do about looks. Some people are certainly more intelligent, more athletic, more practical, more artistic, more hard-working, better leaders, etc., than others, but these are also qualities (or are relevant to activities) that can be affected to a large degree by training. You aren't just born an engineer or scientist or writer or enterpreneur; you generally have to work hard to succeed at that. A lot of people certainly aren't cut out for these, no matter how hard they try, but very few among those who do have the talent will make it without a lot of effort.

Looks are not like that. Aside from cosmetic surgery, you're stuck with what you have. You might possibly make it in a looks-oriented profession, like acting (or its close cousin, TV journalism), without being very good-looking, but podium girls and the like are not about that. As far as I can see, it's pretty much all appearance--not necessarily great beauty but a kind of superficial flawlessness that is mostly genetic (flight attendants also come to mind here). Which means that encouraging children into livelihoods like these is to teach them to rely mostly on what they were born with, rather than what they can develop.

Yes and no. I was born ugly, and went bald in my early 20s so there isn't much I can do about my my head. But even at half a century my body is lean and fit. That took a lot of work (even though I thrive on that work). I would guess that most of the podium girls were born with a pretty face, but they work at keeping their bodies looking good.

 

[RedheadDane]

Maybe instead of getting rid of podium-girls altogether, simply say that they're actually allowed to be dressed...
Another thing could be to change the 'selection criteria' so podium girls don't have to be long-legged and big-breasted.

 

[wendybnt]

What, put some fat munters up there, you mean?

Great idea. Sponsors will lap it up

 

[RedheadDane]

Thin, thick.
Tall, short.
Wide, slim.
White, black.
Blue, orange.
All kinds of people.






Okay... maybe not orange and blue...

 

[jmdirt]

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling.

I agree, it's not part of the argument for me. I'd rather hang with a girl who rides than one who adorns the podium, but the main point for me is that the podium girl thing just serves no positive purpose and simply offers another bit of evidence to our girls that their value is their looks alone.

Its your job as a parent to teach your girls that "looks" are just one of many ways to determine self worth. Should we encourage woman to stop being engineers because we don't want their value to be based on their intelligence alone? Some people look good, some run fast, some paint well, some sing well, some write code, some develop, some design.... celebrate you. That's not to say that one of those beautiful woman isn't also smart, etc.

I agree, it is my job. I also think it's time to retire such a blatantly sexist practice.

When girls being judged only on their intelligence gets to be a problem, I'll happily address it. I can't wait. The difference is one of substance. Much like MLK dreamed of people being judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character, one can say the same of other outward appearances. We should be judged on our merits, not our appearance. Our culture can promote that or detract from that belief. This is a small way in which we say appearance matters over all. It's not the right thing, in my view.

BTW, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant all parents.

 

[Archibald]

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling.

I agree, it's not part of the argument for me. I'd rather hang with a girl who rides than one who adorns the podium, but the main point for me is that the podium girl thing just serves no positive purpose and simply offers another bit of evidence to our girls that their value is their looks alone.

Its your job as a parent to teach your girls that "looks" are just one of many ways to determine self worth. Should we encourage woman to stop being engineers because we don't want their value to be based on their intelligence alone? Some people look good, some run fast, some paint well, some sing well, some write code, some develop, some design.... celebrate you. That's not to say that one of those beautiful woman isn't also smart, etc.

I agree, it is my job. I also think it's time to retire such a blatantly sexist practice.

When girls being judged only on their intelligence gets to be a problem, I'll happily address it. I can't wait. The difference is one of substance. Much like MLK dreamed of people being judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character, one can say the same of other outward appearances. We should be judged on our merits, not our appearance. Our culture can promote that or detract from that belief. This is a small way in which we say appearance matters over all. It's not the right thing, in my view.

Agree, but as fathers of daughters, it's not just our job, but I think it becomes the job of parents of boys too - to teach them how to view women respectfully and properly. Not to consider them as objects and/or inferior.

 

[red_flanders]

If we get rid of podium girls it won't make any difference to woman's cycling.

I agree, it's not part of the argument for me. I'd rather hang with a girl who rides than one who adorns the podium, but the main point for me is that the podium girl thing just serves no positive purpose and simply offers another bit of evidence to our girls that their value is their looks alone.

Its your job as a parent to teach your girls that "looks" are just one of many ways to determine self worth. Should we encourage woman to stop being engineers because we don't want their value to be based on their intelligence alone? Some people look good, some run fast, some paint well, some sing well, some write code, some develop, some design.... celebrate you. That's not to say that one of those beautiful woman isn't also smart, etc.

I agree, it is my job. I also think it's time to retire such a blatantly sexist practice.

When girls being judged only on their intelligence gets to be a problem, I'll happily address it. I can't wait. The difference is one of substance. Much like MLK dreamed of people being judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character, one can say the same of other outward appearances. We should be judged on our merits, not our appearance. Our culture can promote that or detract from that belief. This is a small way in which we say appearance matters over all. It's not the right thing, in my view.

Agree, but as fathers of daughters, it's not just our job, but I think it becomes the job of parents of boys too - to teach them how to view women respectfully and properly. Not to consider them as objects and/or inferior.

I would think so, and that would actually be far more effective if it could be done.

 

[Archibald]

I would think so, and that would actually be far more effective if it could be done.

can't see why not;
in the 30's 40's etc it was not only acceptable to smoke, but even considered beneficial and healthy - however, now that social attitude has turned...
again, in the 40's 50's, my father used to take his rifle to school as part of the school shooting team - now look at the general attitude towards guns and schools...
so, it can be done, but just needs to start somewhere by a serious collective group, but include serious government and advertising backing - that, and to get it promoted properly in schools so as to bring through the next generation with the right mindset

It's not like no one is calling for it...

 

[red_flanders]

I would think so, and that would actually be far more effective if it could be done.

can't see why not;
in the 30's 40's etc it was not only acceptable to smoke, but even considered beneficial and healthy - however, now that social attitude has turned...
again, in the 40's 50's, my father used to take his rifle to school as part of the school shooting team - now look at the general attitude towards guns and schools...
so, it can be done, but just needs to start somewhere by a serious collective group, but include serious government and advertising backing - that, and to get it promoted properly in schools so as to bring through the next generation with the right mindset

It's not like no one is calling for it...

I'm with you, and will do what I can in my own community and circle of friends and family.

 

[stefan357965]

The most beautifull girls

 

[fatandfast]

this is one subject that always morphs into something bigger and completely different from it's origin.
Showing woman from India..ok..they are in the streets primarily for woman's rights, in the streets and in the courts. After women are gang raped or killed they is little to no justice. A man or group of men can rape a woman(and other sexual assaults) with little to no consequences. The women march also to protest the minimal public outrage at the events..pretty different from podium girls.They are marching to end or change life and death issues.

Women's sports, regardless of an official title 9 approach, they are simply explained by biology. Woman are smaller and not as muscular as men and have a different chemical makeup than men, men are typically better at picking up a bag of cement than a woman. However if a woman can lift that same bag of cement, or do any job the same as a man she deserves the same money. That includes Messi type moves or climbing with Alberto. If a woman can dunk, let her and pay her, pitch 95+ give her a contract. If the physical outcomes are different so should the prize money.
Now to the physical, I want to be in the NBA, I feel that they are singling me out because I am short. Why can't I be a super model? Why won't they make they clothes in a larger size? Why can't everybody see that I am beautiful and buy soap or other beauty products as a result of seeing me in print or on a TV ad? Why is the world sooo unfair? There are some simple biological facts about humans. They do research about cheek bones and eyes and see that people respond better to the better structured ones.
Yes Homer Simpson type people have a place on the planet and everybody deserves love and understanding. As far as kissing a race winner and handing flowers or a trophy to that person...go ahead experiment with having nobody hand the prizes out. Just leave the stuff on the top step of the podium. Have John Goodman or Gerard Depardieu handshake or kiss winners..just to try something new. We all like to see pretty things, bikes, cars, houses and yes men and women..why does this have to be bad?

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Thin, thick.
Tall, short.
Wide, slim.
White, black.
Blue, orange.
All kinds of people.






Okay... maybe not orange and blue...

Yeah I agree, just make it like jury duty. In the UK a comedian called Sara Pascoe brought forward the idea that the page 3 topless models should be random (didn't happen ofc) so why not podium girls?


I'm being serious btw