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

No bike tyres were harmed in the making of the calendar.
I t was women in short skirts and tight trousers possibly in evocative poses we will never know.
How is that,
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

The fact there was no men on it could mean it was discriminating against them maybe.

Is a winner emerging yet?

Listen. This whole thread isn't covering anyone in glory. One group thinks that the calendar demeans women, and that that's a bad thing, as well as being indicative of an unpleasant attitude in society towards women, by a significant proportion of men. The other group thinks that it's just a few pictures of pretty girls who get paid so are not exploited (as individuals at least) and that it's such an insignificant issue in the grand scheme of sexual equality that it's really not worth worrying about. Both sides are intransigent and have made valid points, and both appear to be displaying a failure of empathy to a greater or lesser extent. It's also patently obvious that neither side is going to change their position one jot. Maybe it's time to let your arguments rest and agree to disagree, before people get all (more?) stroppy and flouncy. It's not going anywhere, time for a step back. Neither side is doing themselves ANY favours, either to their position, or to their own standing. It's a bit cringeworthy to be honest.

Lots of love, V8 xxx

I was asking for clarification, and getting none.

How is that,
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

It's *encouraging* it.

Is a winner emerging yet?

No winners here, I am signed off sick at the moment so have to much time on my hands.
And arguing the toss on the internet is vaguely entertaining. keeps me away from porn at least.

You need a calendar.

To tick off the days until you're better - why, what did you think I meant?

Do you think for a moment that if the female models were replaced by male models in the calendar, that they would portrayed in exactly 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.

they wouldn't be posed the same way because they wouldn't look sexy that way. You can't pose or use the same type of lighting when you shoot men as you do with woman, it just doesn't work. There are plenty of "hot" or "sexy" guy calandars out there. Men Don't even have to have all their clothes off to appeal to ladies. know your audence.

So in the end, it's all down to lighting.

Well thats cleared everything up then

Can we make this stop now? Please? For everyones benefit?

[img] [/img]

Its Monday morning folks, so heres a picture of some kittens with light sabres...

[img] [/img]

Oh, FFS. Just walk away.

It's true though isn't it. A sexy man calendar wouldnt have men in exactly the same poses as was ludicrously claimed as a requirement for it not the be sexist. They would equally objectified though.

The fact it takes that degree of explanation suggests either wanton misunderstanding, I.e. trolling or gross stupidity.

And that's this thread in a nutshell, constantly batting away all the strawmen without any engagement with the original issue.

Is a winner emerging yet?

No but a consensus is forming around the idea of a society in which women are protected from being seen as objects of lust. It's working out fine in Saudi Arabia.

Can we make this stop now? Please? For everyones benefit?

well if you stopped trolling it would

I can't believe this drivel is till ongoing!! It's verging on ridiculous! 🙂

[s]well if you stopped trolling it would[/s]No, I want the last word, me me

I know, let's play the 'next person to post on this thread is a great big eejit' game. Works with my five year old, see no reason it shouldn't work here.

Starting... NOW.

[img] [/img]

A lady boy calendar by Maxxis is the way forward .

what happen to november and december ?

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.

Perfectly put, sir.

they wouldn't be posed the same way because they wouldn't look sexy that way.

Yes! And the big question here is WHY?

Take the typical sexy hunk photo from a perfume ad, say. He is commanding, strong, and *dominant*. That lass second from the right in the Maxxis babes, she's presenting her arse, she's *submissive*.

Now look for that body language elsewhere in advertising, you'll notice it all over the place. Men dominant, women submissive. It's so pervasive that people think it's the normal way of the world, even when they are't sexist themselves.

The problem nowadays for feminism is the constant background level of gender stereotyping that's become part of our cultural language over the last century or so. It forms part of our understanding of gender relations.

I did notice one perfume ad this year that features quickfire images of a man ravishing a woman, but it also features an equal number of images of the woman ravishing the submissive man. Nice touch, I thought.

It's true though isn't it. A sexy man calendar wouldnt have men in exactly the same poses as was ludicrously claimed as a requirement for it not the be sexist. They would equally objectified though.

The fact it takes that degree of explanation suggests either wanton misunderstanding, I.e. trolling or gross stupidity.

Why? Objectification doesn't happen in a vacuum (where I would agree, if it was a level playing field, 'sexy naked men' would be just as much objectified as 'sexy naked women'). Our society is still fundamentally unequal and that's why this calender is backwards and pitiful.

(If you disagree that society is unequal then the longest thread in the world won't convince you but you could try looking at the Fawcett Society stats on equal pay or everydaysexism.com for starters, or maybe try talking to some actual women.)

I'm not calling for the calender to be banned but I am pretty disappointed and surprised by the number of men on this board who can't conceive of any problems with it. I remember seeing those booby peanut boards in pubs when I was a kid and that's the point - they are relics from the past. Tacky and dated. It'd be nice to get to the point where reputable companies would be embarrassed to put something like this calender out, and that's where journalism like the original article comes in. Suggesting the author should then go and work for Maxxis to help them come up with a better plan is utterly ridiculous and irrelevant, as is pointing at other pieces of her work.

I am somewhat heartened by those men who have made an effort to explain why some people may object to it (thanks binners and molgrips in particular). I had genuinely thought that things were getting better but maybe I just mix with a nicer bunch of chaps and I'm getting a distorted view of the world.

I remember seeing those booby peanut boards in pubs when I was a kid and that's the point - they are relics from the past

Nope, you still see them. Peanuts and tyres are both Products Wot Men Like To Buy.

Fleshy fleshy catchee monkey.

Who wouldn't want a buy a tyre with a tread like this: [url] http://tinyurl.com/zdqo7ve [/url] ?

*warning* NSFW/SFW (delete as preferred)

Yes! And the big question here is WHY

because men and woman are different.

Why? Objectification doesn't happen in a vacuum (where I would agree, if it was a level playing field, 'sexy naked men' would be just as much objectified as 'sexy naked women'). Our society is still fundamentally unequal and that's why this calender is backwards and pitiful.

men are objectified more than woman and woman talk/treat men differently. I'd say woman are worse than men when it comes these kinds of things.

fionap - I think the vast majority of us 'get it', on account of having something between our ears, and the self-awareness to realise that looking to the 70's for your guidance on sexual equality isn't a good thing. Personally I always had a selection of strong female role models since being a kid. Still have. And that formed my opinions. And thankfully informs my daughters. So I've never bothered with the culture that promote this kind of cringeworthy claptrap, that felt past its sell by date 30 years ago!

But It seems those who are wilfully, in fact gleefully hard-of-thinking (or/and terminally insecure)are clinging on to their tired, sad, embarrassingly outdated misogyny, and are just shouting the loudest. Its not really a surprise, is it?

I'm sure your opinions will now be rubbished by the usual parade of Jim-Davdson-alike's now, just as ours have been

After all... what would you know?

i do think its time for the mods to close this thread. Its just become cyclical, and there just appears to be a gang of ****-wits who are clearly revelling in being as crass, sexist and generally objectionable as possible

Pretty tragic really

because men and woman are different.

Expand on that. What exactly are the differences that relate to how people are photographed looking sexy? Because I think the differences are exactly what I am talking about.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

So the reason one of these images is sexist objectification and one isn't is because we do not live in an equal society.
So when there is no longer a pay gap will The bottom image be acceptable in a modern society aswell as the top or will the top become as unacceptable as the bottom.

Can you see the different body language there? Serious question.

Ok so that bottom image isn't as bad as the Maxxis one, and in producing two images they have at least made an effort. But even then, they are still demonstrating my point, albeit accidentally (and I'm not blaming them). There is a fundamental imbalance in gender relations.

And another intellectual titan tries to illustrate their flawless, unchallengeable nature of their argument, with reference to.....

Hollyoaks

Genius!

Because if the men were not as muscular and (strong) they would not sell as many because since Michael Angeles David this is masculine beauty.

So if the woman were muscular and the men weedy would that be ok.

So the reason one of these images is sexist objectification and one isn't...

Eh? They both objectify. One submissively sexual, the other aggressively sexual. Both tacky and both unsexy as all hell IMO - but that's another 'discussion'.

Back to the, er, 'babes'. Isnt it fair to conclude that whilst no-one has stated that they want to ban it, some think it's tacky and 70's, others think it's fun, while others think it's a somewhat sinister reminder of the continuation/resurgence of gender inequality in our society today. Others think that others wish to ban it, and others still think that others are thinking something that they themselves really think and are so projecting their thoughts into a comment feedback-loop that makes many people want to chew their own elbow.

And some do not think at all 8)

All very tyreing. < I hate myself for that.

[quote=cumberlanddan]It's true though isn't it. A sexy man calendar wouldnt have men in exactly the same poses as was ludicrously claimed as a requirement for it not the be sexist. They would equally objectified though.

Is it really hard to understand that this is part of the reason for it being sexist? You're agreeing with the point being made here, without seemingly being aware of it.

We've done that there are indeed calendars with half naked blokes on, but where is the Maxxis blokes calendar promoting their tyres? Are there any calendars produced by tyre companies with half naked blokes on? Indeed what calendars are there promoting products with half-naked blokes on? Why is that?

The fact it takes that degree of explanation suggests either wanton misunderstanding, I.e. trolling or gross stupidity.
And that's this thread in a nutshell, constantly batting away all the strawmen without any engagement with the original issue.

I am enjoying your displays of lack of self awareness in your posts. You do realise that you can't accuse every point somebody else makes which you don't agree with as being a strawman, simply because some (most?) of your posts have accurately been described as such? You could always try reading the link you so helpfully provided which explains what a strawman argument is - or simply address the arguments rather than ladling on the insulting language. Lots of us have been busy engaging the issue, but you simply ignore anything you disagree with.

Binners sorry but I am but a poorly educated chav.
But atleast I am trying to understand using what I believe valid points and not just being condescending by posting Sid the sexist.

So if the woman were muscular and the men weedy would that be ok.

If you're looking for me to give you instructions, I'm not going to. I'm not prescribing how society should work, I'm not telling people what to do.

I'm trying to explain the situation. If you disagree, set out your argument.

So the reason one of these images is sexist objectification and one isn't is because we do not live in an equal society.
So when there is no longer a pay gap will The bottom image be acceptable in a modern society aswell as the top or will the top become as unacceptable as the bottom.

Obviously there's more to it than the pay gap (massive oversimplification of inequality) but you raise an interesting question (although I think you may be being facetious). I'd like to think that we will move towards valuing men and women equally for their achievements and actions rather than their muscles or their boobs but that's probably idealistic. Nothing wrong with aiming high though!

[quote=chip ]So the reason one of these images is sexist objectification and one isn't is because we do not live in an equal society.

If we ignore the difference in body language which has been pointed out, then actually in that context there isn't too much difference, and I tend to agree that neither is much different to the other.

So where is the Maxxis hunks calendar?

Lots of us have been busy engaging the issue, but you simply ignore anything you disagree with.

850 posts? C'mon...let's get this to 1000 before Christmas!

[img] [/img]

[s]851[/s]

852

perhaps should have been "smell the tread"

So where is the Maxxis hunks calendar?

It's obvious, Maxxis marketing dept have decided that it's (mostly?) hetero men that buy the tyres around here. Simple. (Not commenting on the desirability of this situation). To engage in some steretyping myself - hetero men presumably like to buy stuff with pics of men on (role-models, ie hunky wholesome guys in Dickies workwear, that handsome pristinely-coiffured dude with those cufflinks etc), but not normally promotional material with semi-clothed naked men?

(Hetero) women get some of it too - we've all seen the fizzy drink male-striptease adverts? (Women gushing over half-nude man)

The subsequent discussion is do the public get what the public want? Or does the public want what the public gets?

What few ask is does 'the public' want 'the public'? Or do we wish to value individuals first, beyond shape and gender? We live in a world dominated by marketing/branding, and they haven't time money or in inclination NOT to simultaneously pander to and reinforce gender stereotypes. They are there simply to make money.

So many shallow product-based orange people of late says maybe not right at this point in history...

To me it feels like the 80s/90s ran its course and we are now having a 50s/70s throwback couple of decades (missing out the 60s)

Its all bloody weird.

So where is the Maxxis hunks calendar?

where indeed? Their competitors are making them...

[img] [/img]

So question for everybody on the thread, ignoring any other intrinsic value of said calendar, is the existence of a Maxxis babes calendar and the absence of a Maxxis hunks calendar sexist?

If not, why not?

Can that question exist in a vacuum, though?

...assuming the vacuum is on a treadmill.

I'm saddened and disappointed in myself that it's taken me 25 pages that the reason there's a problem with the calendar is because it's "dated"...