[Closed] That Maxxis "babes calendar" article...

So if a woman complains of sexism then it must be true? No questions asked?

Dangerous logic that.

[quote=chip ]I believe there's no harm in this calendar and it's possible to believe that and not be the sexist women should be a chef in the kitchen and a slut in the bedroom a woman's place is in the home 70s dinosaur I have been labelled.

FWIW I don't think that failing to see the harm makes you a 70s dinosaur - and nor does anything in the rest of that post. I think it means that you've failed to understand what the issue is. I'm fairly confident that most of us on this side of the debate also appreciate the female form, have normal human desires and agree that women can be both our equals and feminine.

The 'Look! Look at me! Look at my misogyny! Ha ha hand wringers!" Show is still going on then?

*yawns*

When do the schools go back? Have we got another 2 weeks of this?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]So if a woman complains of sexism then it must be true? No questions asked?

[img] [/img]

What impact?

Already explained it in my first post.

Do you know or will you have to ask a woman, being a man.

Of course. I talk to women, I read what women write, and I listen to their viewpoint. It is that viewpoint, and my thoughts on it, that I have articulated on here. And the original article also articulates.

And it's those views that you have dismissed out of hand, but I'm not sure what your basis for that is.

Good question about schools binners.

I do hope you and aracer don't struggle too much with your maths homework.

molgrips - noone has dismissed anything out of hand.

Many people have posted perfectly reasoned posts which have just been greeted by derision from a few other people. Anyone arguing that the initial post is an overreaction has been accused of being stuck in the 70's misogynist pigs which over the course of several pages of both good and bad discussion ends up in accusations of intolerance from people who then refuse to engage and post silly pictures every few posts.

Now were reduced the level of 'she's a woman therefore knows more about sexism than any man'. Not exactly a reasoned argument, a bit like the initial article.

Theres a few people - not a whole 'side of the argument' - who are basically acting like children.

I'm quite happy for anyone other than binners, molgrips, junkyard or aracer to decide who they are.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Theres a few people - not a whole 'side of the argument' - who are basically acting like children.
I'm quite happy for anyone other than binners, molgrips, junkyard or aracer to decide who they are.

😆 absolute classic dan insinuation!

Though of course your whole post is a strawman - those you think are behaving like children have spent most of the thread trying to carefully explain the reasons behind our views. I've yet to see a good explanation why that reasoning is wrong other than "I disagree".

Do you think you're clever for working it out?

It wasn't intended to be difficult.

Clearly, your strawman is a strawman.

Hang on , ill post a clever looking link, that'll make me look more cleverer. [url= https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman ]strawman[/url]

molgrips - noone has dismissed anything out of hand.

Ok, forgive me if I've missed it, but can you explain exactly why you think calendars like these are not a feminist issue?

'she's a woman therefore knows more about sexism than any man'

Not what I said at all.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Do you think you're clever for working it out?

If that's what you think, then it might explain why you've missed so many of the other points.

No, it wasn't difficult, about your usual level of insinuation which you've filled most of your posts with and then claimed "I didn't mean that", hence the 😆

wow molgrips.

Theres 23 pages of it. Have a read.

Have a look at that strawman link too.

Ok, forgive me if I've missed it, but can you explain exactly why you think calendars like these are not a feminist issue?

A feminist issue it may be, but then noone said it wasn't. Sexism? That it isn't.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Have a look at that strawman link too.

Exactly what are you suggesting is a strawman in molgrips' post? I know, it's somewhere back in the last 23 pages, because you can't be bothered to provide evidence for your allegations.

A traffic jam when you're already late

FWIW I feel quite proud to be part of the group of 4, thanks for that

Ok mole grips
If I was to comment on a woman's looks, for arguments sake said I thought she was fit (I don't mean as in looks like she goes to the gym) would I be behaving in a sexist manner.

And if so what if I was to comment on a woman's looks in a derisory manner would I also be being sexist.

Serious questions.

A no-vaping sign on your e-cig break.

Theres 23 pages of it. Have a read.

I have been reading it. If there's something I've missed perhaps you could summarise?

Is it just that we are splitting hairs about the definition of sexism?

Chip - thanks for bringing it back to an interesting discussion. The answer would be context dependent.

Give a women you know a compliment in a social situation - fine. A woman you don't know, depends what you say and how much you load it. Comment on Serena Williams' looks when she's just won a tennis tournament - in private, dunno, in print - probably.

If I was to comment on a woman's looks, for arguments sake said I thought she was fit (I don't mean as in looks like she goes to the gym) would I be behaving in a sexist manner.
And if so what if I was to comment on a woman's looks in a derisory manner would I also be being sexist.

Only you would know whether it was sexist or not. Words alone are not enough. I realise that some folk need to be so reductionist when debating that they need the argument to be distilled down to that level of black and white simplicity, but of course it's far more nuanced than that. The words you utter alone are not enough to tell whether the comment is sexist or not - it's your subsequent judgement of the person according to her looks and of course that may be said, or more likely unsaid. I kinda think and hope you realise this already, hence the reductionist question.

molgrips - i think its slightly more than splitting hairs but yes.

Your last post illustrates that it seems to be fairly complicated issue so perhaps its more nuanced than "rauncy calendar bad, all who think raunchy calendar bad are pigs".

pretty much as I thought mole grips.

So if I was to refer to a woman on an Internet forum as looking like [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-apprentice-10/page/4 ]daffy duck[/url] would that be sexist?

Your last post illustrates that it seems to be fairly complicated issue so perhaps its more nuanced than "rauncy calendar bad, all who think raunchy calendar bad are pigs".

Oh aye, absolutely. It's a very complex issue especially nowadays as equality has moved on a lot more than 100 years ago. I'm sure the definition of sexism has shifted a lot too. But lots of isms don't have clear definitions either.

For me, a calendar like this is similar to talking about Williams' looks as she wins a tournament instead of her tennis.

So if I was to refer to a woman on an Internet forum as looking like daffy duck would that be sexist?

Sexist? Don't know. Nasty and unpleasant? Certainly.

To be fair, as stalkerish as it is, I don't think binners would ever deny being a nasty and unpleasant ****er.

For me, a calendar like this is similar to talking about Williams' looks as she wins a tournament instead of her tennis.

Well to me, its completely different as there is no judgement on any part, just an image. If it was a calendar of sportspeople which focussed purely on their arses then you might have a point, but it isn't.

Ok, forgve me if I've missed it, but can you explain exactly why you think calendars like these are not a feminist issue?

to be a feminist is to want equality, a calandar with ladies on it does not make woman unequal. All that woman does is tell models they shouldn't be working and posing in a certain way which is really none of her business.

Come on girls... Put your handbags away..

This whole thing is getting well gay

I haven't seen it, but is each image accompanied by a little mini-bio of the model along the lines of the Sun's enlightened page 3? Y'know..."This is Nicole from Gloucestershire. She hopes that world leaders agree to limit climate change this week in Paris?"

Well to me, its completely different as there is no judgement on any part, just an image.

It's not necessarily about judgement, it's about priorities.

Williams* is there to play tennis, what she looks like is not important. But if a commentator or interviewer mentions it, it's diluting her achievement as a player with her achievements as eye candy.

And it's BECAUSE women have been battling the idea that they are eye candy for men more than they are people for centuries (and still are) this is why it's bad. Because it's reinforcing the negative ideas that other women still suffer from.

to be a feminist is to want equality, a calandar with ladies on it does not make woman unequal.

Hmm.. if everyone was a feminist, perhaps that might be true. But not everyone is.

* ok so perhaps this particular player is not a good example since she is also promoting her clothing line, I believe, but the point stands

To be fair, as stalkerish as it is, I don't think binners would ever deny being a nasty and unpleasant ****er.

😀

Oh come on, he's a big softie 🙂

to be a feminist is to want equality, a calandar with ladies on it does not make woman unequal. All that woman does is tell models they shouldn't be working and posing in a certain way which is really none of her business.

The way I see it, the endgame for feminism is not telling other women what they can and can't do, but a society where "babes" calendars are just not needed in the first place. Of course that relies on a change in underlying attitudes (of men mostly) which is more difficult to achieve but the slow nudge, nudge, creep, creep of those attitudes is slightly accelerated by challenging the existing status quo. (I think mol said something similar way back, but I can't be arsed trawling others posts to find out; unlike some.) Of course, knuckle draggers don't really like being challenged. We've had over 20 pages of evidence of that.

r feminism is not telling other women what they can and can't do, but a society where "babes" calendars are just not needed in the first place. Of course that relies on a change in underlying attitudes (of men mostly) which is more difficult to achieve but the slow nudge, nudge, creep, creep of those attitudes is slightly accelerated by challenging the existing status quo. (I think mol said something similar way back, but I can't be arse trawling others posts to find out; unlike some.) Of course, knuckle draggers don't really like being challenged. We've had over 20 pages of evidence of that.

So what about the explosion of the porn industry due to he Internet and digital cameras, will that die with the change in underlying attitudes (of men mostly).

he's a [b][u]big [/u][/b]softie

Fattist.

Or will It be our guilty secret. our attitude towards women has changed. Although still furiously fap away but feel really guilty about it.

The way I see it, the endgame for feminism is not telling other women what they can and can't do, but a society where "babes" calendars are just not needed in the first place.

And where people realise that models pouting at the camera have absolutely nothing to do with tyres.

So what about the explosion of the porn industry due to he Internet and digital cameras, will that die with the change in underlying attitudes (of men mostly).

I haven't a clue to be honest. If I had a quick link to one of aracer's straw man pictures, I'd post one though.

Knuckle draggers. There we go again. Why reduce it to that level? If you can't engage sensibly why post anything?

Mol - its not the calendar at fault though is it, its the commentator. My primary point is that the calendar itself is not sexist. It does nothing directly to encourage sexism and it is education of those who might actually be sexist which is required. Not banning calendars.

I haven't a clue to be honest. If I had a quick link to one of aracer's straw man pictures, I'd post one though.

Knuckle draggers. There we go again. Why reduce it to that level? If you can't engage sensibly why post anything?

Because I think that men who struggle with some of the fairly simple concepts in this debate are knuckle draggers and I'm using the kind of language they might understand. Although, maybe that might be bullying. I dunno...do you?

And where people realise that models pouting at the camera have absolutely nothing to do with tyres.

no straw man required it was a genuine question.

In a separate discussion maybe. The last time I looked at porn, which was many years ago, it wasn't trying to sell anything. Is there product placement these days or something?

Mol - its not the calendar at fault though is it, its the commentator.

It is part of the wider problem. They are all bricks in the wall. Every calendar, every comment on an outfit, every inappropriate lewd comment.. all bricks in the wall, all need taking down one by one. They all support and encourage each other.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]My primary point is that the calendar itself is not sexist. It does nothing directly to encourage sexism and it is education of those who might actually be sexist which is required. Not banning calendars.

It's a subtle issue rather than a direct one, it encourages the idea of women as things which are used as decoration.

banning? Still? Can we ban that word from this discussion?

In a separate discussion maybe. The last time I looked at porn, which was many years ago, it wasn't trying to sell anything. Is there product placement these days or something?

My primary point is that the calendar itself is not sexist.

Do you think for a moment that if the female models were replaced by male models in the calendar, that they would portrayed in [u]exactly[/u] the same way (with "come hither" expressions, and scantily clad). If the answer to that is a scoffed, "no of course not"...then the calender promotes sexism.

[b]sexism[/b]
[i]?s?ks?z(?)/m
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.[/i]

The issue here is that the portrayal of women is used [u]differently[/u], not [u]how[/u] that portrayal is expressed. A non sexist portrayal of women in the calender would have been of both female and male riders using and enjoying Maxxis bike tyres for their intended purpose, or indeed if the calender had both men and women in states of undress, that also wouldn't have been sexist. (it still would have been exploitative and objectifying, but at least it wouldn't have been sexist).

help?

Is a winner emerging yet?