Censored?

[Dai]

Fellow Tea-shoppers I invite you all to read the thread 'Lady Cyclists' Magazine' in the Events and Rides section.

I made, in a perfectly respectable manner, a point regrading what I saw as possible sexism in the concept of the magazine.

That view has been censored and the topic is now locked.

Whether you agree with my view or not I would appreciate your views on that censorship and whether, as I do, you think it was a tad heavy handed to say that I was being disrespectful - are disrespect and disagree synonyms on this forum?

Thank you for your time

[Guy]

Dai,

your comment was a bit terse and could have been misconstrued as an attack.

Saying that, to jump down your throat and then lock the whole thread was a bit harsh IMHO.

[ThomasDylan]

In some ways, I can understand why the moderators are operating a zero-tolerance approach.

Look what happened the last time someone was allowed to run amok!!!

However, it would be useful to know from the moderator if the censorship was done as the result of a complaint or if it was done unilaterally.

If it is the latter, then I am concerned. At the very least, I think some explanation should be forthcoming to tell the "offender" why it was being done. Otherwise the same "offence" might happen again.

[David]

Phew - that went to hell in a handcart PDQ.

I don't think I'll be buying a copy of the mag now

I'm amazed at how quick it went off. I'm really fighting the urge to say something here but some things are best left unsaid.

Wonder how long it will be before this thread gets the BB treatment

[ThomasDylan]

FWIW, I support the concept of niche magazines. Many cycling magazines are pretty male-oriented, macho publications.

The facts are that women are under-represented in the cycling community and anything to encourage their (and any other under-represented group) participation is a positive step.

I wasn't party to the original comments and I'm sorry the thread degenerated, but I still think that some sort of explanation to the board would clarify why a thread was locked.

[Mick F]

Oh dear.

I hadn't read the thread before, now I have.

It was an argument. Not an overtly friendly one either. Raw nerves were touched on both sides.

Oh dear.

Healthy, I suppose, to have a barney. But we've had barneys on here before, the Admin people don't want a return to that.

Swallow it, and get back to 'Happy Times'!

Regards, Dai.

Mick F. Cornwall

[Hugo]

Look what happened the last time someone was allowed to run amok!!!

I'm not going to Diane Bulley anybody except to say that a well rune MB should pull in new members to the club.

While the CTC was moving HQ it was understandable that a new MB was difficult to get going.

I'm jolly glad it is going well now. May business be brisk.

May Diane Bulley's new mag be a great success.

Pity she won't post here more often along with the gallant Helen/Karen/ and several others.

[Si]

Dai, speaking with my forum member's hat on, I did find your comments a little strong and very open to interpretation as an attack on Diane. I have no problem with you having an opinion (would be a boring place if we all thought the same) but would suggest that you considered how you expressed that opinion.

Seems to be that the forum member whose actions you were criticising was a) new to the forum so it was not a very nice welcome, b) was some one who was promoting cycling and so shouldn't expect an immediate put-down on a cycling forum and c) had made no provocational first strike.

In terms of sexism - I don't see it. To me sexism is when you are putting down members of one particular sex rather than when you are trying to encourage the participation of women in what we must all agree is a male dominated hobby.

Indeed, previous mags/newsletters aimed at women, such at the "Glass Ceiling" that was part of the women's specific shop attached to Swallow Tandems, did nothing but good for cycling in general. It helped my wife get started on a bike because it catered to women's specific needs, and as a man I never felt at all threatened or down trodden when I went there with my wife.

[Dai]

I thank you all for your replies but so far, with the exception of Guy, none of you have answered the fundamental question that I was seeking opinions on.

The issue I have is not whether my opinion on the sexism of the magazine was correct or not but whether I have the right, that my ancestors gave their lives for, to freedom of speech.

Just because a comment is short and to the point does not make it an attack.

I am as keen to encourage cycling in all shapes and forms as all of you but not at the expense of my democratic rights.

The argument over sexism I shall save for another day except to say that it would pay many people to realise that sexism, racism and all the other isms work in both directions.

[Brian]

For what its worth I am with Dai 100% 0n this thread, but don’t completely agree with him on the original thread. If that makes sense?
Dai passed an opinion without resorting to personal abuse, others are free to disagree with that opinion. It seems a tad over the top to lock the thread.
I think this is the price we are going to have to pay for the lunacy of the old boards.

[thirdcrank]

I am sure that the concept of a magazine devoted to cycling and aimed at women or any other section of society is entirely rational and acceptable.

On the other hand, to invite contributions from women only is offside.

One of the issues that I really try to address on here and elsewhere is the range of things which act as barriers to cycling and women tend to face more of these than men. (It sounds banal to say that some years ago I produced a well-received explanation of puncture repairing for a women's group.) I am rather saddened when I find that any possibility of helping is rejected in advance.

I am disappointed about the regrettable decision to lock the thread which I feel was misguided and entirely without justification. (And I worded that as neutrally as I could.) A big step has been taken down a very slippery slope.

[Mrs Tortoise]

I think some misunderstanding has arisen all round here, which is very sad.

Perhaps it's in the nature of message boards that communication is brief and thus might be misinterpreted. In NLP there is a saying, "Communication is only as good as the response it gets."

[ThomasDylan]

Dai, speaking with my forum member's hat on, I did find your comments a little strong and very open to interpretation as an attack on Diane. I have no problem with you having an opinion (would be a boring place if we all thought the same) but would suggest that you considered how you expressed that opinion.

Seems to be that the forum member whose actions you were criticising was a) new to the forum so it was not a very nice welcome, b) was some one who was promoting cycling and so shouldn't expect an immediate put-down on a cycling forum and c) had made no provocational first strike.

So Dai, it seems that others feel you were too strong in your responses. I would tend to agree. One persons "respectful" is another person's "blunt".

However, the Admin response was OTT, but I guess all of us are in a steep learning curve regarding what's un/acceptable. Did you get a PM explaining the decision?

[Si]

On the other hand, to invite contributions from women only is offside.

I don't think that this was entirely Diane's intent. I think that she is after contributions relative to women who cycle or are considering it, and as such, I'm guessing that she would welcome anything that is written by males but is inspired by experiences of women's cycling and helpful to women cyclists.

I appologise unreservedly if I'm putting words into Diane's mouth here, but based on an email from her I believe that this is the case.

[Dai]

Si - no offence to you personally but as you are one of the moderators, and part of the team to which Graham is sending my complaint about censorship, I don't think you should be taking part in this thread.