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

<generously assuming dan isn't trolling>

Just a thought for you dan, when nobody else on here is agreeing with your definition and classification of a strawman argument, how many people disagreeing with you would it take for you to consider your position?

</assuming>

If they don't cause unpleasant behaviour, what's the problem?

They help to validate it.

Which one of you reported Jeremy Vine to the BBC Equality and Diversity Board for using the term "manflu" on air.

Just a thought for you dan, when nobody else on here is agreeing with your definition and classification of a strawman argument, how many people disagreeing with you would it take for you to consider your position?

I agree with Dan but value my time more highly.

The suggestion is that there is no direct cause/effect, but that the existence of such calendars and similar marketing material helps in a small way to legitimise such behaviour in some groups, and that if such things didn't exist there would be a small non-direct decrease in such behaviour. "I'm not groping that woman because I haven't got a girly calendar on my wall" said no misogynist ever, but the effect would be real.

I can imagine how that might happen, but it also seems to me that people (well, men ..) will find something to lust over, whether it's a girly calendar or the underwear section in the BHS catalogue. I fear that we're focussing on the wrong thing, and that greater equality and respect will lead to less interest in this rather pathetic pornography.

I agree with Dan.

Anything to get this badboy/girl to 2k posts.

They help to validate it.

That's just an assertion.

A winner!!!!

Oh, perhaps not.....cmon folks, Christimas spirit and all that 😉

How generous. May I add that I have been extremely generous with my responses to you.

As for people agreeing or disagreeing with how to define a strawman argument, I suspect most people have better things to do. As do I.

[quote=DrJ ]I can imagine how that might happen, but it also seems to me that people (well, men ..) will find something to lust over, whether it's a girly calendar or the underwear section in the BHS catalogue.

They will - I acknowledged as much earlier. The difference is in the degree of normalisation and objectification - the underwear section of a catalogue isn't something you put on public display, and nor do the women pose in suggestive ways (so I've been told 😳 )

<implausibly assuming dan isn't trolling>

[quote=cumberlanddan ]As for people agreeing or disagreeing with how to define a strawman argument, I suspect most people have better things to do. As do I.

Really? You appear to have spent quite a lot of time on it.

</assuming>

The attitudes displayed in this thread, people calling sexism and racism for such little provocation, are why crimes like the child abuse in Rotherham were able to go on for so long - people afraid to say anything because some idiot acting as the political correctness police would jump down their throats.

it's only a calendar featuring some good-looking women who put a lot of effort into remaining photogenic - a bit like a lot of men also do to appear in Mens Health magazines, etc, and countless en

there are a lot worse crimes being committed in this world.

The difference is in the degree of normalisation and objectification

Again - just assertions. Does seeing something fictional really make a significant difference to real life behaviour? Are readers of Lolita more likely to become pedophiles? This topic is rapidly exhausting even my enthusiasm for pointless quibbling, but the arguments seem a bit thin so far 🙂

The attitudes displayed in this thread, people calling sexism and racism for such little provocation, are why crimes like the child abuse in Rotherham were able to go on for so long

😯

there are a lot worse crimes being committed in this world.

whataboutery

[quote=DrJ ]

The difference is in the degree of normalisation and objectification

Just my opinion, my opinion being that Adele was making a reasonable point - but some on this thread (who have more patience than I do) have done much better explanations. Why don't you explain why we're wrong if you think we are - we could do with something intelligent and logical on that side of the debate?

The fact is that some men do have dodgy attitudes and sexual behaviour, and they're not getting them from a vacuum - they're coming from somewhere.

Yes, just an assertion. Held by a lot of people though not just me.

Like you did by banging on about racism in a way which wasn't relevant.

I thought it was very relevant. Another once widespread -ism that is being confronted.

So what exactly is the difference between the girls on this calendar and a group of firemen/chippendales making a calendar?

Because men aren't marginalised, objectified, victimised and generally viewed (by some people) as second-class citizens in the same way women are. That's the difference (I said this about 20 pages back, and here we are still).

And yes of course, that sort of thing does happen to men too; but it's much, much less common. Superficially we're talking about striving for equality - sexy women = sexy men in calendars - but the logic bomb that half of the posters here are continually missing / ignoring here is that we're not on a level playing field. As (largely) white heterosexual men we're in a position of privilege, of power even.

This thread has clearly demonstrated that nature abhors a vacuum and will repopulate any niche. Its like the bad old days of the trinity of argue. Its even got minor tj and elfin clones developing. Sweet baby jeesus 😯

So what if it all went away in the name of feminism. No more ladsmags on sale no more calendars of either sex on show, no more sexiest soap star award. All men and woman featured in music videos will be appropriately covered up.

Will this make me more or less likely to take a second to admire the pretty woman with a large bust walking past me in a low cut top. Will she even be allowed to show ample flesh once sexual attraction becomes a taboo.

will my sole source of titilation be the Internet or will that be campaigned in to self censoring too.

Will I be reduced to buying old copies of baywatch on VHS from a dodgy bloke behind the co op.
Could this whole sorry affair fuel a resurgence in hedge porn until we eventually evolve in to a nation of asexuals.

If the only person you have seen naked in the last twelve months is your wife are you going to be more or less likely to look at the bikini clad ladies on the beach when on your annual two week break in Torremolinos.

Oh the humanity.

We kind of need a sticky of points for this thread - the one about similar male calendars does seem to be the most repeated though. Everybody also seems to be ignoring that even if there are similar calendars with blokes on, Maxxis don't produce one, and apparently the reason a blokes one wouldn't sell is so obvious that it provoked a head in hands moment - yet that in itself being evidence of sexism appears not to be so obvious.

Chip, don't be stupid.

Just in case this hasn't been mentioned:

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism ]Feminism[/url]: a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Sex_industry ]On the sex industry[/url] (mixed views): feminists critical of the sex industry generally see it as the exploitative result of patriarchal social structures which reinforce sexual and cultural attitudes complicit in rape and sexual harassment. Alternately, feminists who support at least part of the sex industry argue that it can be a medium of feminist expression and a means for women to take control of their sexuality.

So what if it all went away in the name of feminism.

I mentioned that early on too. Perhaps in order to have healthy modern attitudes towards sex and sexuality we need take a step back first.

I've no desire to desexualise the country; quite the opposite, we should be more comfortable with sexuality, I think that as a nation we're still very prudish about the subject and I'd be happy if we could deal with things like sex and nudity in a mature and sensible fashion. But "lad culture" (ie, the handwave excuse to be a monumental bell-end towards others) needs kicking to the kerb before we can move forward.

Mole grips you are a fine man, good and decent.
You have managed that despite the corruption of sexy calanders.
What percentage of the population manage to partake in responsible objectification with out resorting to sex crimes or it cultivating a unhealthy attitude to the opposite sex.

Forcing self censorship of all sexual images of people based on it offending feminists or encouraging a hormonal young man to shout oy oy at a passing lady is as I said before like restricting the performance of all cars because some people drive like knobs.

saxabar > that's basically what I'm saying. Once we've addressed "the exploitative result of patriarchal social structures which reinforce sexual and cultural attitudes complicit in rape and sexual harassment" and stamped out the notion that this is somehow ok, we can get to a point where "it can be a medium of feminist expression and a means for women to take control of their sexuality" is normalised.

But that won't happen whilst lads in the street bellowing "look at the tits on that" at a passing woman goes unchallenged.

I have worked in the building trade all my life and never witnessed anyone shout look at the tits on that.
How many times have you witnessed that cougar .

What percentage of the population manage to partake in responsible objectification with out resort to sex crimes or it cultivating a unhealthy attitude to the opposite sex.

1) that's the wrong question. The question you need to be asking is "what percentage [i]don't?[/i]"

2) WTAF is "responsible objectification" when it's at home?

Forcing self censorship

Again, we're going round in circles, I've said this before. It's not "forcing" anything, it's bringing to Maxxis' (etc) attention that a group of people don't like what they're doing. They're perfectly free to review their policies or ignore the feedback completely as they see fit. They might decide that actually, they don't care because it raises money / is a bit of fun / appeals to their target audience / keeps young models in work / whatever, but at least they can make an informed decision rather than being oblivious.

I have worked in the building trade all my life and never witnessed anyone shout look at the tits on that.
How many times have you witnessed that cougar .

Fair comment, I probably haven't. Building trade was an unfair example, I was playing to a stereotype. However, I have seen groups of lads do it to random women on the street many, many times.

[quote=Cougar ]It's not "forcing" anything, it's bringing to Maxxis' (etc) attention that a group of people don't like what they're doing. They're perfectly free to review their policies or ignore the feedback completely as they see fit. They might decide that actually, they don't care because it raises money / is a bit of fun / appeals to their target audience / keeps young models in work / whatever, but at least they can make an informed decision rather than being oblivious.

It's interesting in a way if they have really pulled it as a result of this feedback - because that implies that somebody with power there doesn't agree with the arguments made here by chip, dan et al.

Cougar do you view porn.
Has it turn you into sex pervert shouting sexual abuse at young ladies.

If the answer is yes then no.
Then that is responsible objectification. I made that up really.
But you get what it means

Cougar do you view porn.

I don't watch sport particularly, bar the occasional game of something I might be particularly interested in like the Superbowl or something. Mostly I'd rather go and do something in person.

Same goes for porn really.

[quote=Cougar ]Same goes for porn really.

I'm a bit out of touch - what are the special occasions in porn which you do watch? 😉

You did not mention builders as far as I am aware.
I just see us heading for a nanny state what happened to taking responsibility of your own actions.
Plenty of people indulge in objectification with out it leading to a twisted view of the opposite sex.
And saying these calendars cause such behaviour is a cop out that some feminists might use as an excuse to get there own way.

I'm a bit out of touch - what are the special occasions in porn which you do watch?

Weddings, funerals, bar mitvahs.

You did not mention builders as far as I am aware.

Ah, good (so why bring it up?) I did type builders initially, then deleted it, hence my confusion. (I'm not very well I'm afraid, sorry)

I just see us heading for a nanny state what happens to taking responsibility of your own actions.

Slippery slope?

And saying these calendars cause such behaviour is a cop out that some feminists might use as an excuse to get there own way.

It'll make a change from the men always getting their way, hey?

Because I am one and stereotypically are blamed for such behaviour.

And saying these calendars cause such behaviour is a cop out that some feminists might use as an excuse to get there own way.
It'll make a change from the men always getting their way, hey?

I said feminists, not women. You are sick.

The fact is that some men do have dodgy attitudes and sexual behaviour, and they're not getting them from a vacuum - they're coming from somewhere.

I'd say they get them from observing real life, not fantasies - from watching how their family and friends act, and from the roles that society has given women. Women have been "second class citizens" for centuries, long before Maxxis calendars, or any other calendars. That's a theory, and as 2 datapoints to support it, I mentioned Sweden and Saudi Arabia.

I am not against the sex industry. Although I do not watch porn.

Not even special occasion porn like Cougar?

its probably special porn he watches

Because men aren't marginalised, objectified, victimised and generally viewed (by some people) as second-class citizens in the same way women are.

and yet we allow 'faith' schools to exist in this country that are indoctrinating their children with views like this.

There was story in the news recently about a school governor that had to sit "out of sight" of the men at an Islamic school.

An ex-labour councilor was on LBC reciting similar issues when canvassing, how the women of the 'asian' households where directed by the men as to how they should vote (this was incidental to the issue she had phoned in to talk about).

We court relationships with countries that force their schoolchildren to burn to death in a fire at a school because they were not correctly attired to be seem in public and therefore leave the building to escape the fire.

and yet we allow 'faith' schools to exist in this country that are indoctrinating their children with views like this.

and yet we allow

Another brick in the wall...

wow they took it down - not just the calendar but the whole babes marketing thing!
[url=http://] http://www.maxxis.co.uk/babes [/url]

Thats a great acheivment and makes me feel less cynical about the world. Props also to Maxxis for listening. I wonder if they'll still have "babes" at MX events and trade shows....

(I expect this may well have already been posted up and I've not seen it cos the thread has a gazillion posts)

that's good.

(traumatised guys please note that other naff mtb calendars featuring scantily clad young women remain available - as an eyebrow-raising google image search just now has confirmed)

If we dealt with all the more important issues first, before getting to how to sell tyres without annoying your customers, we'd have a bit of a wait. If I applied similar rules to my life I'd never make a cup of tea.