Why shouldn't they also take advantage of their good looks?. In many ways it's no different.
I think I broadly agree.
The problem is when it's presented in a way that that's "how you should be," if you're not pretty and stick-thin, if you're not putting yourself out there for the gratification of men, then you're essentially worthless.
The elephant in the room here is, is that what's happening here? Are they vacuous dolly-birds strutting round in bikinis projecting an air of "you know, you could have me," or are they intelligent, professional young women with exceptional social and PR skills who are getting berated because they're also pretty? I've not really seen this stuff first-hand so I don't know, but from others' comments it would seem to me to be the latter.
I've not seen many air hostesses who aren't immaculately turned out, with their hair and make-up polished to the n'th degree. Is this vastly different? (That's a question not a statement, I don't know as I have the answer.)
Nice bit of sexism justifying fifth-form level logic, TPB and ARM... try harder
Eh.. What justification did I make exactly? I simply agreed with cougars point that it depends how you see it. How is that 5th form logic exactly ?
Back in your box..
I know someone who worked s one once
She was a model and she was picked from her portfolio based entirely on her appearance without an interview
She was not once assessed for her skill set in dealing with people or anything else.
When she went - Moto GP or some such as a brolly holder she said she was pawed relentlessly and told if she complained or challenged folk she would not get any more work
She did not pass a rigorous exam and interview that assessed her PR skills, her social interaction skills, her witty banter or customer service expertise
she was picked on her looks and nothing more.
The elephant in the room here is, is that what's happening here? Are they vacuous dolly-birds strutting round in bikinis projecting an air of "you know, you could have me," or are they intelligent, professional young women with exceptional social and PR skills who are getting berated because they're also pretty?
No they're just good looking women earning good money for literally nothing, and why wouldn't they?
Why does everything have to be over thought FFS?
Yeah, we're sick of these "thinkers."
Cougar - Moderator
Yeah, we're sick of these "thinkers."
Ha!, to quote you,
Cougar - Moderator
Thank you for that positive and insightful contribution.
Yeah. I spent a few days in the hotel at Le Mans MotoGP with the Monster Girls. They were not chosen for their brains and PR nous, social skills etc. In fact, I am pretty sure that I only saw a couple of them eat anything all weekend, and that was half an orange.
They hated us though, as we were taking the piss out of the jiggle shows, they did every couple of hours, the crowd had their backs to us but we never clocked the girls could see us. I did end up apologising for that.
10 pages and only a couple of pics ??
[i]Ha!, to quote you[/i]
Sarcasm recognition fail.
You say "good looking women earning money for nothing" I say "media confirmation that women are ornaments/trophies and valued only for their looks".
Potato, potatoe, tomato, tomatoe etc etc.
I mean, at times they practically hand them over as if they are trophies themselves. Proper life affirming stuff that is.
"media confirmation that women are ornaments/trophies and valued only for their looks".
In the same way that the TdF confirms men are valued only for their physical prowess and mental courage.
Looking to the extreme top level of sport for a benchmark to live up to is not going to make anyone feel good about themselves.
Still trying to argue people into the ground OOB? Worked out what you think yet?
I'm fairly sure I recall that last year one of the [s]podium girls[/s] hostesses on the tour circuit was indeed a professional cyclist.
Worked out what you think yet?
As yet I'm agnostic about the whole issue. If someone wants to come up with exactly what they'd [s]ban[/s] stop and exactly which people they'd [s]ban[/s] stop from doing it then I'd be happy to express my view.
The fact nobody is willing to do that tells me that nobody has a clue who they would allow on the podium and who they wouldn't. Which is unsuprising since the prize giving itself is a made up ceremony with completely arbitary roles. If you banned anyone who doesn't have 'role' from the podium a role could just be made up for them.
Why don't you look at other podiums and the roles
For example, which roles are involved in an Olympic medal giving podium. Pretty sure I don't see podium girls at the Olympics. How come they are not required there?
If someone wants to come up with exactly what they'd [s]ban[/s] stop
You're either being wilfully obtuse or missing the point.
"Stop" isn't a friendly euphemism for "ban", rather some people are suggesting that they hope the practice would die out of its own volition, that the organisers would decide that it's an unnecessary and outdated practice.
I may be wrong but I don't think anyone has suggested banning, stopping or otherwise actively preventing it.
If someone wants to come up with exactly what they'd ban stop and exactly which people they'd ban stop from doing it...
The fact nobody is willing to do that
Bollocks. Try reading the thread. Instead of bickering with the last post.
There are loads of "why"s and a link to the Australian site that people agree with.
[i]In the same way that the TdF confirms men are valued only for their physical prowess and mental courage.[/i]
If you really think that is the same as women being just for show.. words fail me.
You're either being wilfully obtuse or missing the point.
Ok. We can stop the search for the new STW Forums strapline.
"Stop" isn't a friendly euphemism for "ban", rather some people are suggesting that they hope the practice would die out of its own volition, that the organisers would decide that it's an unnecessary and outdated practice.
Nobody has any problem with that AFAICT and I've explicitly said I have no problem with that. (What problem could there be?)
I may be wrong but I don't think anyone has suggested banning, stopping or otherwise actively preventing it.
Obviously you're wrong otherwise there'd be no debate at all. I was responding to someone mentioning 'banning' (using that word exactly) and asking *exactly* what he wanted to be banned. All subsiquent debate has been over *exactly* what needs to be banned.
[quote=kerley ]Why don't you look at other podiums and the roles
For example, which roles are involved in an Olympic medal giving podium. Pretty sure I don't see podium girls at the Olympics. How come they are not required there?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/2008-07/18/content_6859229.htm
If you really think that is the same as women being just for show.. words fail me.
If you really think that TdF podium girls suggest that women are just for show ...
How come they are not required there?
They're not, they're not required anywhere. Would that question have been better addressed to a post where someone said podium girls are 'required'? Can you find such a post?
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2017/jul/06/tour-de-france-sexism-problem-condoms-jan-bakelants-la-course ]https://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2017/jul/06/tour-de-france-sexism-problem-condoms-jan-bakelants-la-course[/url]
If you really think that TdF podium girls suggest that women are just for show
Yeah that's what I think you pillock.
you pillock
Oh, ok, you've got me convinced by your argument.
[quote> http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/2008-07/18/content_6859229.htm
I suspect that the nit-pickers will point out that Olympic medal bearers are not physically on the podium, they are a number of feet away from it. Apparently London was the first Olympics at which some of the medal bearers were male.
So you'll laugh at someone doing their job that you don't approve of? You're a delight
Can't see the problem. I find a lot of jobs laughable. Management consultants, relationship managers, digital marketing etc. In fact, after 20 or so years of working in IT I find my own job is the butt of much humour too.
Oh, ok, you've got me convinced by your argument.
Cool. I knew there was a language that you would understand.
The clue is in the name, Tour de [b]France[/b]. They have a different view of these things, they are not overwhelmed by political correctness for one. As for "stick thin" my wife is a uk size 10 and is considered "fat" in France. Fashion magazines are created by and for women and they buy them. If "thin" models didn't sell clothes etc they wouldn't use them.
It would perhaps be better if we had successful (pro or not) male cyclists presenting the womens medals and visa versa .. but other than that I can't see why selecting someone "attractive" over any other criteria is a problem???
We could have celebs presenting medals - famous for ??? being on big brother or similar... or some famous footballer or "musician"... or even worse some political fluncky...
or worse still we could have some fluncky from British cycling... presenting the medals?
The majority of financially successful actors and actresses don't just happen to be attractive .. George Clooney or Cameron Diaz don't just by accident appeal sexually to members of the opposite sex (or indeed same sex)
You could argue George Clooney exploits both being attractive and his acting and directing to actually do worthwhile stuff....
Selecting models who need the work and might lack other skills seems the least bad option....
In the same way that the TdF confirms men are valued only for their physical prowess and mental courage.
If you really think that is the same as women being just for show.. words fail me.
I fail to see the connection ....
Men in the TdF are valued mainly for their physical prowess.... which quite frankly I'd far rather see ONLY .... unfortunately they are also valued according to their looks and "interview-ability" and represent a "brand"
They have a different view of these things, they are not overwhelmed by political correctness for one
YEAH! Vive Le France!
If you really think that TdF podium girls suggest that women are just for show ...
At the risk of repeating myself (and others), this is still a small part of a wider problem. Looking at it without appreciating the context doesn't really work.
I just find the whole podium girl thing a bit embarrassingly 70's / Benny Hill / YewTree. The fact they are paid to 'entertain' the great and good is just plain creepy.
UCI Downhill seems to manage without them.
Just out of interest, I'm pretty sure the Sun didn't ban their page 3 pics. I can't remember exactly why they decided to get rid of it, but I think it was on the back of public opinion of one form or another. I'm sure there must be other examples where sexism either just wasn't considered acceptable and faded out or was pressured by public opinion.
Using these routes would mean that OOB concerns as to "where the line is drawn" could be avoided completely. It would likely be an iterative process (or public debate*) and stuff like "attractive person with sporting talent" could be considered by race organiser/PR dept/audience alike. Rather than a more draconian legally binding approach.
* Just like this thread!
In the same way that the TdF confirms men are valued only for their physical prowess and mental courage.If you really think that is the same as women being just for show.. words fail me.
Now look here. The women on the podium get several hundred quid for pouting and not having a name or personality. Easy life. OK so the men get to become famous millionaires; household names with knighthoods renowned for their sporting prowess. But they have to cycle up a mountain! If anything, it's the men who are hard done by here.
Just out of interest, I'm pretty sure the Sun didn't ban their page 3 pics.
Hiring girls under 18 was banned by the CPA. The two criteria are clearly stated. ...but yeah broadly speaking people didn't want to buy newspapers with boobs in them so the papers stopped printing them. Seems good to me.
It would likely be an iterative process (or public debate*) and stuff like "attractive person with sporting talent" could be considered by race organiser/PR dept/audience alike. Rather than a more draconian legally binding approach.
Or to put it another way leave the status quo exactly as it is. The organizers just design a prize giving that they think works for punters/media/sponsors within the law as is stands hiring appropriate staff to provide that. Yeah, that could work. 😀
And it's fair enough for the punters (me) to say it's one of the things that makes pro cycling look a bit naff and old fashioned.
And it's fair enough for the punters (me) to say it's one of the things that makes pro cycling look a bit naff and old fashioned.
Yup.
Although, the organizers know the punters are gonna watch the racing anyway and they know punters aren't watching for the prize giving. So I suspect this is far more about getting the images into the mainstream media to get the advertizers logos visible to people who aren't watching the sport already.
And the advertizers just want what the media want.
So probably the media have the real power here.
Except the media just show the news that 'the general public' want to buy.
So it's *all* our fault. We need to take a long hard look at ourselves. 🙁
I'll post the link again because it is an interesting listen (Cycling Podcast is a great listen during the Tour full stop)
Here they interview female and male pro cyclists, organisers and a number of the Podium girls themselves at the start of this years race:
https://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/kilometre-0-tour-de-france-2017
I'm a bit 50/50, i do think the practise is a bit antiquated yes, but listening to the ladies themselves, it is somethine they clearly enjoy doing.
I personally think podium girls are the least of cycling problems when it comes to the fairer sex, the fact that most of the mens teams don't have a ladies team as well (Sky stated from the start they were going to), that the ladies don't get the TV coverage, that they don't get the "proper" Grand Tours and that the women's race at the TdF is a crit on the final day basically, i think if ASO need a kick up the backside, it's not for having attractive ladies on the podium, it's for the fact that they don't think people would want to watch them race proper races on TV.
[i] people didn't want to buy newspapers with boobs in them[/i]
Some Sun readers yesterday
[img] http://tinyurl.com/ya7mndwk [/img]
The clue is in the name, Tour de France. They have a different view of these things, they are not overwhelmed by political correctness for one
Actually I think the French now have legislation about models' weight etc - whether it's enforced, or sufficient, I don't know.
Boardinbob - there is no need for the personal attack and name calling. I have no idea who you are - should I ??
I suspect this is far more about getting the images into the mainstream media to get the advertizers logos visible to people who aren't watching the sport already.
There's probably some truth in this. How do you get your brand in the papers? Get the paparazzi to take photos of it. How do you get them to take photos? Hire some photogenic ladies.
[quote=hels ]Boardinbob - there is no need for the personal attack and name calling. I have no idea who you are - should I ??
So just to clarify, it's ok for you to criticise the podium girls for what they (don't) eat and laugh at them when they're doing their job?
In fairness, F1 got rid of it years ago
Maybe, but they still spray a lot of champagne around, promoting alcoholism. It would be better if they used a vegetable-based health drink.
