Podium Girls

[old_windbag]

. I expect that if they required them (for example) to put on a women's Tour de France at the same level of the men's race, in order to get approval for the men's race, we'd see a helluva competition on major television.

Why not just have all the mens and womens teams in the same TDF together. They'd split into groups as the mens race doess( speed differences/tactics etc ) but I'm sure it could be done. The women would be racing over the same stages as the men and the audience that of the normal tdf so prizes could be equal for men and women. Perhaps cut the team sizes down by 1-2 people so the peleton size is remains nearly as it is now and can accomodate perhaps 7 or 8 womens teams.

Ps I'm sure theres something wrong with this forum setup, I seem to get missed characters, edits that don't update etc.

[Vorpal]

I'd be happy enough with that. Or mixed gender teams. But I doubt that the sporting world is ready for it

p.s. I think it would solve the controversy about podium girls, too

[pjclinch]

Sometimes it's hard to get a particular sex interested in a particular sport or pastime. Perhaps most women don't find cycling, whether leisure or sport, appeals to them.

As it stands in the UK with its general perception of cycling being an edgy, dangerous pastime it typically doesn't. Pop over the North Sea to the home of sensible cycling (just getting about as much as leisure or sport) and slightly more women than men will be found riding bikes, so there's nothing particularly unfeminine about riding a bike. Have a look at... [youtube]Hb0QjASuuqI[/youtube]

[old_windbag]

p.s. I think it would solve the controversy about podium girls, too

Well it would be fine with me Vorpal as in my sexist mode( nature made me like this I'm pretty hardwired ) it'd keep me watching .

But in all seriousness I think it could work and to do a one off experiment one year and try it wouldn't hurt. There'd still be all the male teams in there.

Just seen PJclinches post, I'll take a look.

[Bicycler]

As the question of 'equality in sport' has been raised. And to put the cat amongst the pigeons...

In the workplace the assumption of equality holds, not because there aren't differences between men and women but because those differences are insignificant compared to the variance within each sex. In most occupations it would be wrong to assume a person of one sex to be better at their job than one of the other.Thus the assumption of equality is perfectly sensible in the workplace.

Does the same hold true for elite sport? I don't think it does. We can say with certainty that the fastest male cyclists are faster than the fastest female cyclists. Now I'm not claiming that this isn't down to biological advantage but isn't that true in all sports? At 6-foot it doesn't matter how hard I tried to be a basketball player, I wouldn't have been as good at basketball as many of the taller pros. Like all the professionals, I might have reached my potential as a basketball player and that is an achievement, but no-one could objectively look at my basketball playing and consider it equal to the best.

In life we assess people by what they achieve measured objectively, not compared to potential. The allure of racing lies in seeing the fastest. I don't choose a denstist because he was the best one who happened to be male, I wouldn't choose an accountant because she's the best female accountant. I'm not saying that all different types and tiers of sport aren't worthwhile, or even necessarily that the most entertainment always comes at the very top of the game, it doesn't. It is great fun watching Formula 3 or Football League 1, often more fun than their more celebrated counterparts. But equal? Nah.

[Bicycler]

As I was writing that diatribe, Vorpal suggested mixed gender teams. Fine, great. If women can perform equally to men in sport and I've just been led along by sexist myth, then I'm happy to be put right. I have no problem with acknowledging a woman (or women) as being the best at whatever they are actually the best at To me equality is being given an equal start (much progress does need to be made) AND being judged on equal terms.

[old_windbag]

Mixed gender cycling teams would be difficult because on the whole( due to well known hormones and physical build ) men tend to be faster than women when at the top end of their sport. Thats not to say that mixing female teams alongside male teams in say the tdf wouldn't work, I feel it'd be worth considering and gives common airtime to both sides. There'll always be some women who can mix it with the men, but they are rare at the top levels( beryl burton was impressive for distance tt ), where athletes are honed to get the last watt of effort out. In everyday life theres more chance that you'll meet a woman who cycles faster than yourself as a male. Particularly as often our power to weights as everyday cyclists can be bogged down by carrying excess weight that a top athlete would not carry.

[Freddie]

It always amuses me that those that rail most strongly against podium girls, girls featured in lads mags and so on, do it on the basis on women's rights, without considering these women's right to make a living. Let's face it, the kind of women employed in such a manner are hardly likely to be studying for a PhD on the side (though one or two might), but they are making very good money by using an asset they do have, their body.

What the actions of one woman has to do with all women, I don't know. A adult woman is an individual, she represents herself; if she has an attractive body and can use it to earn money, who should tell her that isn't her right?

"Empowering women" would see all of these girls out of very well paid and rather easy work and into some kind of menial job in the local supermarket. This is the better outcome, according to some, than the rather nebulous and unproven idea that a woman scantily dressed affects all women in the negative. I don't think a slim twenty something in a bikini makes men more likely to accost women of pensionable age or those of a rather fuller figure, for example.

When a man does something, he is an individual. When a woman does something, whether good or bad, it reflects on the entirety of womankind, not because men demand it, but because women do. It is a very odd situation, in that some women use their hard fought liberty to deprive other women of the liberty to do something, which affects them in no significant manner, purely because they find it distasteful.

[Bicycler]

There'll always be some women who can mix it with the men, but they are rare at the top levels( beryl burton was impressive for distance tt ), where athletes are honed to get the last watt of effort out. In everyday life theres more chance that you'll meet a woman who cycles faster than yourself as a male. Particularly as often our power to weights as everyday cyclists can be bogged down by carrying excess weight that a top athlete would not carry.

Well, quite. That was my point. In day to day ordinary life (and that includes the cycling your or I do transport, leisure or sport), of course we can't make blanket assumptions about people's abilities based upon their sex. At the elite end of sport though, there is a definite performance difference.

Turning this back round to the comments pjclinch and I were making upthread, this is yet another reason why cycling shouldn't be thought of a synonymous with 'cycle sport'

[honesty]

It always amuses me that those that rail most strongly against podium girls, girls featured in lads mags and so on, do it on the basis on women's rights, without considering these women's right to make a living. Let's face it, the kind of women employed in such a manner are hardly likely to be studying for a PhD on the side (though one or two might), but they are making very good money by using an asset they do have, their body.

What the actions of one woman has to do with all women, I don't know. A adult woman is an individual, she represents herself; if she has an attractive body and can use it to earn money, who should tell her that isn't her right?

"Empowering women" would see all of these girls out of very well paid and rather easy work and into some kind of menial job in the local supermarket. This is the better outcome, according to some, than the rather nebulous and unproven idea that a woman scantily dressed affects all women in the negative. I don't think a slim twenty something in a bikini makes men more likely to accost women of pensionable age or those of a rather fuller figure, for example.

When a man does something, he is an individual. When a woman does something, whether good or bad, it reflects on the entirety of womankind, not because men demand it, but because women do. It is a very odd situation, in that some women use their hard fought liberty to deprive other women of the liberty to do something, which affects them in no significant manner, purely because they find it distasteful.

That's all great, but also complete rubbish. It has been well proven again and again that the propagation of negative stereotypes about body issues and women's right has detrimental effects on societies perception of women. Podium girls are an effect of this, not it's sole cause.

As for the models right to model, I believe I said on my very first post that if they want to, good for them. Sort of blows your point about not considering it out the water really. i said it pretty much as the first thing I said on this thread. They have a right to do what they want. I just find it distasteful that people believe that you need to have semi-naked females strutting round to legitimise the trophy giving for a cycle race. Again, people can choose to be whale hunters, but I don;t suggest just because they could we should want them to be so.

Also you seem to be pinning this on the models. Its not them that need to change. Its the people who believe that it is fine to have them there. Your post reads like the arguments for hi-viz. If you are not wearing it, it's your fault for being ran over...

[old_windbag]

To attempt to "normalise" the often excessively visually pleasing and inferiority complex creating effect that podium girls seem to have for everyday women. CUK is offering their own team of podium girls available for a small charitble donation, these are likely to cause less offence as women will be pleased to see their figures are in the "normal" range and more representative of themselves.



"Smokin, dems my kinda gals "

[Freddie]

It has been well proven again and again that the propagation of negative stereotypes about body issues and women's right has detrimental effects on societies perception of women.

Has it; by whom, what are your sources? Is having girls in bikinis the "propagation of negative stereotypes"? I'd say it was glorification of the female body. That is no less accurate than your view that it propagates negative stereotypes.

As for the models right to model, I believe I said on my very first post that if they want to, good for them. Sort of blows your point about not considering it out the water really. i said it pretty much as the first thing I said on this thread.

Good for them? Yet you want their ability to earn money in this manner dismantled, one way or another....I'm sorry, I find it hard to believe you think it is "good for them", when you want this form of employment to cease to exist.

Again, people can choose to be whale hunters, but I don;t suggest just because they could we should want them to be so.

Actually, it is illegal to hunt whales in most parts of the world. I'd suggest killing a whale is a altogether more serious act, than to bare a bit of flesh in a safe environment for good remuneration.

Also you seem to be pinning this on the models. Its not them that need to change. Its the people who believe that it is fine to have them there.

Well, once again, if the opportunity to do such modelling is done away with, as you obviously think it should be (even if you say it is not models that need to change), then the models will have no choice but to change, as they will be done out of an employment!

So, this is one women's right you don't seem to agree is a right. A woman's right to earn money modelling her body in swimwear is not a right you would uphold, it seems.

[Vorpal]

I read a book a couple of years ago; I think I have referred to it on this forum before. It's called Playing With the Boys: Why Separate is Not Equal in Sports. The authors effectively dismantle all the assumptions about gender differences in sport.

I am inclined to think that women are not competitive because they haven't had the competition. Yes, women are somewhat disadvantaged, but the authors of that book show that the physiological differences don't explain the performance differences. In long distance competition, women may even have some physiological advantages over men.

In general, though women have been culturally discouraged from participating in sports, whilst men have been culturally encouraged to participate. So, the pool of competitors has for generations been large for men and small for women.

Yes, if sports were suddenly made open to all genders, many women would be disadvantanged competing against men. But I think that would change with time.

If you don't believe me, read the book. It's well worth the read.

Let's face it, the kind of women employed in such a manner are hardly likely to be studying for a PhD on the side (though one or two might), but they are making very good money by using an asset they do have, their body.

That kind of thought about women who earn money for jobs where they are potentially objectified is *exactly* why some people have a problem with the whole concept of podium girls. That implies that a woman who has (or at least wants to use) good looks either doesn't have, or isn't going to use her brains.

Frankly, the hostesses (which what the job title usually is) that I have met (on the Tour of Britain and the Tour of Norway) do a very good and clever job of PR for cycling. They don't just kiss the winners, but are also responsible for working with sponsors and VIPs before and during the race. They work every bit as hard as the other people behind the scenes at races, mostly soothing ruffled feathers, and seeing that one sponsor representative doesn't get upset because s/he perceives that another sponsor got some sort of preference. One of the hostesses on the Tour of Norway has a masters degree in marketing, and presumeably was selected partly or mostly on that basis. In addition, she is multilingual (also often a requirement of the job).

[honesty]

Freddie. I could ask you to cite sources as well... go on. Give me a citation that doesn't show women are treated less than men. That women are not judged by looks.

In the mean time, go look at the gender pay gap. Go look at body image. Go look at the number of young women self harming and why. Go look at the number of women on the podium of a cycle race who are execs, and who are there as eye candy. It's not my view that is propagates negative stereotypes, its academia's.

I cannot believe you are trying to justify keeping women on there as pointless eye candy because it would put a few out of work? really? Sorry the fact that you cant see there is a problem with having women there is indicative of the problem. You just do not understand. I don't think you ever will. One can only hope that as the next generation grows up they do not inherit their views wholly from the previous one.

Edit: and as Vorpal says, if you think the job these women do is easy, you seriously need to go and re-evaluate modelling.

[roeboy]

It always amuses me that those that rail most strongly against podium girls, girls featured in lads mags and so on, do it on the basis on women's rights, without considering these women's right to make a living. Let's face it, the kind of women employed in such a manner are hardly likely to be studying for a PhD on the side (though one or two might),

it always amazes me that people who are for podium girls are able to make such sweeping assumptions.

I'm happy for these men or women to work in the background as PR people, but not to appear in this trite way kissing the sweaty winners, because it turns people off our sport and only gives woman the role of 'looking glamorous' rather than accepting them as a potential equal.
And bearing that in mind I still haven’t heard an argument for keeping them there, why do you want them?