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

The language used in the article is as if maxxis tried to force her into a recycled tyre g string and offer her as a trophy at the dunstable downhill cup.

Shouldn't it be a strawperson and not strawman?
Sexism everywhere. 😥

[quote=chip ]I don't want to censor Adele, I just disagree with her or believe her.
She worked in an industry for years that exploited young woman, telling would be fashion models if they had more meat than a butchers pencil they were no good. Parties where the newest young models would be introduced to rich preditary older men. An industry that promoted and enforced the body image that you had to be stick thin,leading to probably thousand of young woman developing eating disorders.
I believe the industry she worked in to be more damaging than any calender.
I don't believe her bike tyres make her feel stupid, make her stupid.
I think she should do a regular column called "things that make me stupid" it could run and run.
Careful, you're playing the (wo)man and not the ball.

Maybe there should be a separate thread discussing the plausibility of the author rather than the calendar itself?

We've done the censorship bit.

She is asking for self-censorship. Which is de-facto censorship. Which is a problem when there are significant minorities who's voices may not be heard. See sunni/shia tensions in iraq/iran etc for one example.

I have to admit I hadn't realised self-censorship was such a problem in the middle east. Those minorities choosing not to voice their opinions - can we force them to?

I find when I'm really losing an argument...and I mean, struggling big style, and I'm looking even less intelligent than before, I start talking about Muslims. That always works.

Molgrips - we've also done why the calendar itself is not sexist in and of itself. I think we effectively agreed to disagree there.

She is asking for self-censorship. Which is de-facto censorship

Disagree.

Which is a problem when there are significant minorities who's voices may not be heard.

Wait, hetero males who like models are a minority?

Molgrips - we've also done why the calendar itself is not sexist in and of itself.

I think your argument is no better than the 'guns don't kill people' one. A brick won't stop you doing anything, but a wall will, and walls need bricks.

I can't put it any simpler than that. I think your point of view is damaging tbh.

*shrug*

[quote=scotroutes ]

I don't believe her bike tyres make her feel stupid, make her stupid.
I think she should do a regular column called "things that make me stupid" it could run and run.

To be fair (which I'm trying to be with anybody prepared to engage in intelligent debate), he does possibly have a point there which directly relates to what she wrote in the article.

She is asking for self-censorship. Which is de-facto censorship.

Please dont go to to church

Forgive me for trying to ban all religion and censor it

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/12/sexism-in-mountain-biking-an-open-letter-to-maxxis/

Its worth reading what she said again as its nothing like you are claiming...oh what do we call that again? [s]Stram man[/s] reasonable response

I recommend misrepresenting everything she says in order to make your argument more effective.

[quote=molgrips ]I think your argument is no better than the 'guns don't kill people' one. A brick won't stop you doing anything, but a wall will, and walls need bricks.

I'm wondering whether moving the discussion onto whether pit babes at motor racing are sexist (which has been acknowledged as pretty much an identical issue to the calendar) might be useful, as I attempted a bit earlier? Assuming any of this discussion is in any way useful.

I dislike those even more than calendars, because they know they are going to be broadcast on telly to millions. And don't get me started on having a pretty girl drape herself on the bonnet of a car at a show. FFS.

find when I'm really losing an argument...and I mean, struggling big style, and I'm looking even less intelligent than before, I start talking about Muslims. That always works.

😀

[quote=Junkyard ]

She is asking for self-censorship. Which is de-facto censorship.

It certainly puts Ben's e-mail into a whole new light - asking for self-censorship, thank God the servers caught fire.

junkyard - so she wrote that whole article with what aim then?

Just to make them feel bad? To try and damage their sales? Or was it to stop them publishing similar calendars in the future? i.e. self-censorship.

[quote=aracer ]

scotroutes  

» I don't believe her bike tyres make her feel stupid, make her stupid.
I think she should do a regular column called "things that make me stupid" it could run and run.

Careful, you're playing the (wo)man and not the ball.

To voice her opinion I suppose - something in aid of which you've probably written many more words here.

[quote=scotroutes ]OK, but folk in the thread have already been called out for this and anyone pointing out her hypocrisy is immediately put into the sexist/knuckledragger category - whether or not they've expressed an opinion about the calendar.

I'm not entirely sure it wasn't me who called somebody out for it first, and I don't think I've ever accused anybody of being a knuckle dragger etc. because of it (or for any other reason - my sincerest apologies to anybody who thinks I have aimed that at them). I simply suggested it was irrelevant, but then I don't think I've seen it put quite like that before.

FWIW I think most of the kunckledragger accusations are rather unhelpful (there probably are a few on the thread, but it seems those most loudly disagreeing with her are doing so because they're not sexist and therefore don't understand the concepts - well that or they're trolling).

I'm suspect it's in here somewhere.

But have you discussed examples where those parading around in skimpy outfits are usually men. This is in (reasonably)main stream TV?

Feel free to point out the page. But there's no ****ing way I'm reading all this bollocks. But I'd be interested to see what the opinions are.

[quote=piemonster ]But have you discussed examples where those parading around in skimpy outfits are usually men. This is in (reasonably)main stream TV?

I don't think we have - though we've covered why unclothed men isn't directly equivalent. I've given it at least 5 seconds thought, and can't work out what you're referring to - care to enlighten?

[quote=piemonster ]But have you discussed examples where those parading around in skimpy outfits are usually men. This is in (reasonably)main stream TV?
Saturday night 🙂
[img] [/img]

And Olde Worlde "wrestling" on TV wasn't a sport, and more up-to-date

http://www.ldnwrestling.com/news/2013/08/05/ldn-wrestling-filmed-for-itv

ONly there for the beer?

Is this still a argument about a calender or to see who can win an argument, think tj got banned for arguing, i would join in but not intelligent enough.

Completely unrelated but I think it demonstrates the difference in the sexes. That dating program with Paddy McGuinness where the panel with twenty or so young women are vying for a single man, you know no lighty no likely.
He was asked why they never flipped it the other way around.

He said they tried it once. He said well the women would be very fussy, a woman might turn her light out after the short VT of the man at home and then when asked why she turned off her light would say she didnt like his wallpaper.

Where as when they had a panel of young men faced with a beautiful young woman, she could come on and say she was a facist dictator who regularly committed genocide on her own people And the men would be like,I don't care if she is a mass murderer, she's fit,I'm in.

He said the game went on for an eternity as no one would turn off their lights, so they never tried it again.

care to enlighten?

No actually. As that would risk a "debate"!

Any idea what page number

though we've covered why unclothed men isn't directly equivalent

This thread is the longest argument about a load of tosh I've ever seen.

Some people like stuff, some don't!

The original article wasn't even a strong enough issue to warrant all the posturing that it's created.

Go to sleep and tomorrow, leave the thread alone.

Completely unrelated but I think it demonstrates the difference in the sexes. That dating program with Paddy McGuinness where the panel with twenty or so young women arebvying for a single man, you know no lighty no likely.

Denise Van Outen and that 'do you recognise this penis' thing. Car crash TV.

@aracer this wasn't what I was referring to a moment ago.

She is asking for self-censorship. Which is de-facto censorship.

Every day, the overwhelming majority of us will exercise self-censorship. Not only would probably none of us use or tolerate the use of the word 'n***er' 'black b@astard'or 'p@ki' in speech, we would also not use those words in our private thoughts to describe a person, because we recognise that they are deeply offensive and it would be alien to us to even think of using such words. This has not happened by chance, but because as individuals and collectively as a society we have changed our attitudes about what is acceptable/tolerable. That process of change has been gradual, and initially many of those who objected to those terms would have been seen by others as controlling and wanting to censor people's freedom of speech and thoughts, but now relatively few people would use such words in speech, and they know that if they do, then others will challenge them.

It is not even acceptable to just be a closet racist and only 'think' those words, because to define someone using those terms in your mind means seeing them as less deserving of equal and fair treatment, and and that will inevitably lead to racist behaviour.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to have what we say go unchallenged, and challenging sexism, racism etc., and asking others to reconsider what they are doing and to change their behaviour, is not censorship.

It is not even acceptable to just be a closet racist and only 'think' those words

Room 101. Scary.

I think he means acceptable on a moral basis, to yourself, rather than to the secret police.

He states clearly what he means. No need for spinning after the fact.

Does anyone really want this thread to carry on? At the risk of being accused of 'shutting down debate' I think it's run its course and should probably be closed. 🙂

It's quite clearly a cheese sandwich

[quote=piemonster ]care to enlighten?
No actually. As that would risk a "debate"!

Hmm, I'm not sure the point of mentioning it then (BTW the phrase used wasn't a challenge, I'm genuinely interested in what I've missed).

Any idea what page number

though we've covered why unclothed men isn't directly equivalent

will be on?

Gosh no, and no I'm not checking. It's been done a few times in various ways - do you want a rehash?

This ones for binners,t his is a show I did like in the 70s although this collection of clips is from 1980.
Please take with a pinch of salt and there are some sexist (maybe) images of woman.

[quote=grum ]Does anyone really want this thread to carry on? At the risk of being accused of 'shutting down debate' I think it's run its course and should probably be closed.

Maybe further discussion should be [s]banned[/s] [s]censored[/s] self-censored?

I imagine that the folk posting to it want it to carry on, no?

Slowster makes a nice point, albeit about a slightly different topic!

Applying the logic here though that does give room to challenge Adele and other's position.

Why do people ask for a topic to be closed exactly? No one makes you post an opinion you can just stop. 😉

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Slowster makes a nice point, albeit about a slightly different topic!

So you weren't suggesting that self censorship is effectively the same as censorship?

Applying the logic here though that does give room to challenge Adele and other's position.

You're thinking his post is supporting your position?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to have what we say go unchallenged, and challenging sexism, racism etc., and asking others to reconsider what they are doing and to change their behaviour, is not censorship.

Slowster makes a nice point, albeit about a slightly different topic!

Just popped in and found I'm agreeing with JY.....

*pops straight back out again*

I suppose someone may have mentioned it in the preceding 1000 posts, but it should be remembered that this famous calendar is a work of [b]fiction[/b]. Separating fact from fantasy is a basic skill for survival, or we risk plummeting from tall buildings wearing tights and a mask.

What?

this famous calendar is a work of fiction

...it's not real? 😀

It's a very nicely written post actually and if you stop arguing for one moment and think then you might realise that what it says supports Adele's right to write the article and anybody else right to challenge that article. That's what a debate is.

I suspect slowster leans towards agreeing with Adele's article but that is not stated in the post. You can read into it what you like though, you seem to be good at deciding what other people think.

The links in the article go to pages that are now offline. I suspect Maxxis have pulled the product.

He states clearly what he means. No need for spinning after the fact.

It's not that clear is it, because we both interpreted it completely differently..?