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

fionap

Do I want the calender banned? No.
Do I hope that type of marketing finally dies out as support for it dies? Yes.

and 6 posts later...

cumberlanddan

Banning, or if you insist, preventing the sale of, such calendars...

Don't feed the troll.

binners - Member

The reason I get so bloody angry is that I don't want my daughters, or anyone else for that matter growing up in world with neolithic cockwombles like Dan in it. Where casual sexism is perfectly acceptable, in fact something to be staunchly defended at all costs, celebrated even. As if being a massively offensive, misogynistic dickhead is somehow a basic human right

I could and probably should give a very short answer to that.

It seems you think that

being a massively offensive... ...dickhead is somehow a basic human right

Your precious daughters. I hope mine never meet yours. Pillock.

I'd be interested to see you justify half of that tripe. Perhaps you can find another witty picture from the 70's?

Which is a pity really, as the main subject is quite serious

Yes, it is, which is why it deserves a better analysis then tits=sexism.

@cumberlanddan - I guess you're referring to my username... I lived for a few years in Appleby and was living there when I set up this account...not in that area now though (sadly)...you weren't planning to stalk me were you? 😀

I've been groped on the tube. I've been flashed at on the train. I've been leered at on the bus. I've been harassed walking down the street. I've had men in cars shout things at me as they drive past. I've had comments when I'm on my bike. None of these experiences are unique - all of my female friends have similar tales

I'm been gropped in a bus station, I've had my bum pinched when working in clubs (photographer), I've had woman try to put their hands up my kilt, I've had comments made when I've been on my bike. Sorry but sexual harrasmint isn't just limited to woman. Thats the attitude of people and sexy calandars to not supporting the sexist element in sociaty. Using secy attractive people so sell products won't ever end and I hope it doesn't as thats censorship. I do hope the world becomes equal and people are no longer sexist (to both sexes)

Trying to be serious for a moment...perhaps one of the issues at stake here, is people with one viewpoint trying to tell others how to behave or think. That's what I really didn't like about the original STW article.

Telling someone how to behave is perhaps a good thing. If a person's behaviour is having a negative impact on another person.

However, telling someone how or what to think isn't acceptable in my book.

I don't think it is acceptable for someone else to tell me (or anyone else) how to think, as long as I (or other people) don't offend someone else by my words or actions.

ie. a person can think and believe whatever they want. that's their business and no-one else's. As long as their belief doesn't then impact negatively on another person.

eg. If I wander round to someones private workshop/garage and he's got a erotic calendar on the wall and he/she believes that is ok, then that's their business and it's not for me to tell them what they should and shouldn't think.

eg. If someone down the pub is making sexist comments in front of other people, that is unacceptable, as their behaviour is negatively impacting other people.

Discuss?

skydragon - has it.

From my seat I've been told what I am and am not allowed to think which I find to be less than ideal.

I've also been told that I think lots of things which I don't think and that those things are unacceptable and offensive so I should change what I think even though I don't think those things in the first place.

Its all very confusing.

Have you been on the internet before?

The only thing that surprises me is that nobody has started a petition

We're slacking.

But just for Danny Boy.....

[img] ?partner=allrovi.com[/img]

Now put your knickers on and make me a cup of tea

*slaps dans arse*

Beyond the immediate "oh look, some girls in bikinis" reaction, the calendar inspires absolutely no further judgment on women from my part.

Yes, but we're not talking about you specifically here. I think you'd be surprised by the attitudes of some men. The ones Fiona and V8 are talking about, perhaps.

Sorry but sexual harrasmint isn't just limited to woman.

Yep - this is well known.

neolithic cockwombles like Dan

Honestly binners, I don't think he is sexist. The reason he doesn't get it is precisely because he ISN'T sexist - he has no idea that there's a problem.

Yes, it is, which is why it deserves a better analysis then tits=sexism.

I agree, which is why I've been explaining that the whole thread! Also why I haven't walked away.

From my seat I've been told what I am and am not allowed to think

I'm sorry, we're really not communicating well at all, and I apologise for that. I think a more careful reading is required. I personally am not telling you what to think - I'm trying to explain what other people think.

pirelli are now doing it for empowering reasons apparently...

http://www.redbull.com/us/en/motorsports/stories/1331762864384/pirelli-calendar-2016

I can't resist skydragon's last post.....

The original article was not telling you how to think, it was her telling you what she thought and HER opinion. She can do this and you can disagree with HER viewpoint but what is not reasonable is to tell her she can't have that view point or that she has no right to voice an opinion. She has stated what she would like to happen to the practice of advertising in this manner (note advertising), which has been echoed by a number of women, myself included.

I have no idea how this can be construed as censorship, banning or telling people how they should think.

The original article was not telling you how to think, it was her telling you what she thought and HER opinion. She can do this and you can disagree with HER viewpoint but what is not reasonable is to tell her she can't have that view point or that she has no right to voice an opinion.

Ginger - Thanks, good point.

I guess my issue is that I don't read a MTB magazine/forum to be informed of feminist viewpoints. I don't want to hear Adele's feminist views, thanks. No offence intended to Adele, who has a right to think and believe whatever she wants.

Just the same I wouldn't want to read an article about how finding God had improved someone's jump skills (no offence intended to the religious forum members)

Back to my point of think what you want, but don't preach.

Slow down ginger or you'll end up like binners! Have a look at molgrips last one.

I know there is a problem. I know some horrible sexist and racist people and the worst ones don't seem to be the ones who make lots of noise about it. They are far more subtle and conniving and that is a real issue.

Just for those who don't get rhetoric, banishing calendars like this just gives the noisy ones something to get upset about i.e. pc gone mad, censorship arguments (which are not completely untrue in my opinion) and gives the nasty little bastards oxygen to go about their business.

So yes, it is an issue but the calendar and sexual imagery generally is not a symptom of it, in my view (though obviously there are examples where it is such as pornography depicting rape and that sort of thing).

[img] [/img]

Reading this thread I think I might go home and cry, for humanity.

Ok Dan so you more or less agree. It's just that you don't think the calendar is in the 'negative' category.

I do, but it's very subtle. Problem is the more subtle stuff is the most pervasive, cos everyone thinks it's fine. And the 'it's just a bit of fun' defence was pretty much worn out in the 70s.

From my seat I've been told what I am and am not allowed to think which I find to be less than ideal.

You're not being told what you should think. Rather, you're being asked to start thinking.

Of course "not all men" equate a glamorous photoshoot with women being subservient / inferior. But plenty do, so whilst the likes of you and I are no doubt shining beacons of male feminism that doesn't mean there isn't a problem elsewhere.

And, of course men experience sexism. I've had my arse (and worse) grabbed by women in pubs and clubs before now, for example, and Hen Party type groups can be pretty forthright and intimidating. I expect many other guys have too.

But the point you seemed determined to overlook is, just because this happens occasionally doesn't mean that there's parity. I can count the number of times it's happened to me on the fingers of, at a wildly vague estimate, both hands. If you were to ask your average woman how many inappropriate comments or unwanted sexual advances they'd experienced you'd probably get a similar figure for this month. And that's the difference, right there.

I think as a nation we're still broadly fairly twitchy and prudish when it comes to sex and sexuality, and I look forward to a day when that's no longer the case. But as I said at the outset, perhaps we just need to take a step back before we can go forwards. Once we finally establish that "laddish" (or indeed, ladetteish) behaviour may be fine in a Blackpool nightclub but isn't acceptable in polite company then we perhaps we can have nice things again.

banishing calendars

Is your browser set to write-only or something?

Er yes. In your opinion!

Having not been around in the 70's I really wouldn't know, though from media references and the rest it seems it wasn't calendars but an actual attitude of discrimination which was the problem. To me, the imagery and the attitude correlate but theres no causality.

Could it simply be that we're from different eras so have a different frame of reference?

[img] [/img]

99 to go boys 🙂

Back to my point of think what you want, but don't preach.

TBH the article didn't seem that preachy to me, it was just a bit;

"Why are we still having to have this conversation?"

Could it simply be that we're from different eras so have a different frame of reference?

Well I was born in the mid-70s, so I didn't experience this first hand.

I started off being curious, because a lot of things feminists would say didn't seem to make sense. But the more I learn about the world the more I understand their point.

because a lot of things feminists [s]would[/s] say [s]didn't seem to[/s] don't make sense.

[img] [/img]

dragon - Member

because a lot of things feminists [s]would[/s] say [s]didn't seem to [/s]don't make sense.

lol

because a lot of things feminists [s]would[/s] say [s]didn't seem to[/s] don't make sense.

Such as?

They don't make sense to you, because maybe you're not listening?

Maybe you are sexist after all?

A lot of feminist writing [i]is[/i] ridiculous but then again, lots isn't. But thats why this thread is so long. All I've said in that sentence is that I disagree with [i]some[/i] feminist writing, yet it will be leapt on and turned into cumberlanddan hates women.

As for calendars, i don't think they [i]cause[/i] men or women to be sexist. I don't think this particular imagery is particularly demeaning or outrageous which makes me think the original article was more than a little bit OTT.

The argument against the calendar seems to boil down to the pernicious nature of the image creating an environment for sexism. Well the language used by many defending the abolishment (is that word OK?) of such images is equally pernicious in that it demeans and dismisses without engaging, and some of it demonstrates a quite sexist attitude against men.

yet it will be leapt on and turned into cumberlanddan hates women.

Ok let's put this to bed. I've repeatedly said I don't think you're sexist. Binners does, but I don't.

Well the language used by many defending the abolishment (is that word OK?) of such images is equally pernicious in that it demeans and dismisses without engaging, and some of it demonstrates a quite sexist attitude against men.

Who exactly is defending the abolition (that's the actual word 😉 ) of calendars? The forced censorship, in other words?

No-one is advocating censorship.

[img] https://fanart.tv/api/download.php?type=download&image=87540&section=2 [/img]

A lot of feminist writing is ridiculous

As are an awful lot of opinions on here. (the one where you keep insisting that people are suggesting banning this sort of calender when no-one has, springs to mind)

and some of it demonstrates a quite sexist attitude against men.

now I know you're trolling 😆

because a lot of things feminists would say didn't seem to don't make sense.

There does appear to be some hypocrisy but that is because there are two (if not more) ways of looking at feminism - those who look for equality (most people arguing the case here) and those who are interested in liberation (Germaine Greer etc) - often they will disagree with each other.

I have been groped by women , had woman flash their boobies and lift their skirts. I have had a man just walk over and sit on my lap and tell me he wanted to take me home and **** me on two separate occassions. I have been beeped at. Had women hold two fingers to their mouth and wiggle there tongue through it.
I even had a woman crash her car as she was to busy watching me walk down the street with my top off.
And had several dogs hump my leg.

I don't know what conclusion to come to with regard to calendars based on the above information.

Now were back into semantics!

Abolishment (I had to look it up! It didn't sound right but is apparently correct), banning, etc - Seriously, what would you call a situation where someone is producing something you don't like and you want them to stop?

Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.

I don't know what conclusion to come to with regard to calendars based on the above information.

Easy: 'Chip' - 2016 Calendar

[img] [/img]

Binners is even posting pictures of child abusers now.
Yay, go binners.

Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.

[img] [/img]

Seriously, what would you call a situation where someone is producing something you don't like and you want them to stop?

I'd call it [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Page_3 ]a campaign?[/url]

Easy: Chip 2016 Calendar

I have let myself go a bit lately, give me six months and I'm in, and we will shoot the 2017.

Excellent. Well done.

A campaign with no purpose then. How wonderful.

The first sentence of your link

No More Page 3 was a campaign to stop The Sun from including pictures of topless glamour models on its Page 3; it ended when the topless feature was discontinued

So, self censorship then.

I can see the 'next' thread coming soon....just needs the 'right' STW article to spark off debate;

'STW article .... E-Bikes, a feminist's view of electric empowerment to help drive gender equality on the trails of Surrey'

it ended when the topless feature was discontinued

It hasn't been though -lots of the right on got excited and then the Sun whapped some baps back on page 3

Take a bow. You're behind Kelvin Mackenzie on the evolutionary curve 😀

So, self censorship then.

Indeed, that was the point of the campaign, rather than 'ban' anything the whole exercise was geared towards getting the the Sun to stop voluntarily.

No bans needed, d'you see?

The sun is free to print as many boobies it wants, and yet...

Does the sun still run page 3 or not, I thought they started again.

But you still don't want them to do it? And you don't think it should be illegal? And you don't think possession of such depraved images should be a crime?

To get it straight then, you don't want them to post pictures of tits, but you want them to be able to post pictures of tits so that they can demonstrate their worthiness by not posting pictures of tits?

Whats the point exactly? And in what way is it different to censorship?

And you don't think possession of such depraved images should be a crime

thankfully or I'd be in jail with my photography back up disc lol

'Slow down ginger or you'll end up like binners! Have a look at molgrips last one.'

So I post my third post out of the 27 pages and I am told to 'slow down'. I wasn't referring to Molgrips but answering another post, as indicated.

You might want to re-read what you are writing and consider how aggressive your posting is before you hit the post button. It is certainly coming across so to me.

[img] [/img]

...and we're onto page bloody three. Ah well. Again, it's about what's appropriate in a given context.

Whats the point exactly? And in what way is it different to censorship?

Do you really not understand the difference between "can't" and "shouldn't"? Oh, wait, what am I saying, you demonstrably don't, you've been banging on about banning / not banning things for half the thread.

Censorship is, simplistically, forcing people not to say something. Whereas a petition or campaign can raise awareness that there's a group of people who don't like what you're saying. In the latter case you're still free to say those things if you like.

The calendar is the same situation. No-one's saying Maxxis can't create such calendars, but some folk are saying that they'd prefer it if they didn't. Is this [i]really [/i]such a difficult concept to grasp?

On the back of this, Maxxis might well turn round and go "gosh, we had no idea, we'll not do it again" and sack all their models; or they might go "well, too bad, a lot of people do like them so we're going to carry on." Either way, they're empowered to make an informed decision rather than soldiering on obliviously.

The issue isn't just that they made the calendar. It's that they thought that they calendar was a good idea.

Self censorship is a completely different thing to censorship. Because self censorship acknowledges that there is something bad about whatever it is.

But you still don't want them to do it?

I would prefer if Maxxis and papers like the Sun didn't print those sorts of images, yes.

And you don't think it should be illegal?

I'd rather not to have to go the trouble of having to identify pictures that are objectifying nakedness, over ones that have nakedness within context. [i]Most[/i] folk can recognise the difference without having the law get in the way

And you don't think possession of such depraved images should be a crime?

Depraved?

Dan, you recognise the problem. That's real progress, and to be honest, takes the wind right out of Binners' sails. No one is suggesting banning a calendar. People here are despairing that there is still a market for it, and are dissapointed that a large firm with access to professional marketing and the like would think tha it's a good idea. For reasons that you have pointed out, it probably [i]is[/i] a good idea, from a fiscal perspective, because there are plenty of unreconstructed, mysoginistic men who have there belief system validated by this sort of dross. It is a spectrum though; there of plenty of mouth breathers (I don't for a second believe you are one) there are the chaos that are in the middle who don't give it much thought because it doesn't affect them or theirs (this is where you are probably I think, and I certainly was in the past) and there are those who are hypersensitised to sexism, like Mol Binners and probably myself, because they are empathic with women in their life, or just because they've done great deal of analysis, both internally and of the world around them.

You're not so far apart in your thinking, everyone.

Agreed.

But I'd also add - don't under-estimate the subliminal effect of peer validation.

Whereas a petition or campaign can raise awareness that there's a group of people who don't like what you're saying

That is [i]de facto[/i] censorship and preventing a perfectly legal minority opinion to be expressed. I don't like the connotations of that line of thinking.

Ginger - my posts may sound aggressive, sorry for that, but thats what happens when you're constantly being attacked! My comment was meant tongue in cheek not seriously.

v8ninety - I'd broadly agree with that post though i would use probably use different language in places and we'd most likely disagree about the proportions in each category

My argument, as before, is that the calendar or similar, doesn't validate anyones opinions and is innocent. It is the other unreconstructed, mysoginistic mouth breathers, to use your terms, who do the validating.

It needs tackling but I think articles like this, and the stop page 3 stuff, can actually make it worse as it gives them something to rail against.

with the intention of making them stop saying/printing whatever 'it' is.

Making them realise that it has bad effects on people they might not've considered, so that they'll stop of their own accord.

Still a big difference.

Its a bit of a difference, maybe, but the main reason the sun stopped was because they lost money, no moral epiphany.

The end result and aim is still censorship, self or otherwise.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Now were back into semantics!

Easily avoided by you simply using words as they are defined

Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.

It needs tackling but I think articles like this, and the stop page 3 stuff, can actually make it worse as it gives them something to rail against.

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

In fact, your version, where the loudest bunch rule, can be worse than 'real; censorship as it lends credibility to bad situations. Maybe you should speak to a shias and sunnis about this type of thing.

In fact, your version, where the loudest bunch rule, can be worse

Yay !

Merry Christmas, one and all !!

Well I'd disagree there.

Not this bit

Because we've decided in recent years that sexism and objectification of women is, y'know, bad and all.

This bit I don't agree with.

except it's not the 'loudest' group, is it? It's the group with the most reasonable and persuasive argument.

In some cases that will be true in others it wont. My point is made for me if page 3 [i]is[/i] back in the Sun, I don't read that rag though so I couldn't tell you.

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

It isn't, (well, there's technically a page 3, but without bare boobs) according to Wikipedia. Last bare breasts were in that rag on 22 Jan 2015. Ain't google great?

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

Are you [u]really[/u] trying to suggest that feminists having an opinion about how women are objectified in print media is unfair censorship?

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

Now that's just silly.

Maxxis aren't bad people. What we want to do is show them that what they have done can be damaging. If they were to realise that I'm sure they wouldn't want to do it (see Pirelli). That's a totally different thing to what you're suggesting.

So stop the page 3 campaign successfully made the sun see the error of their ways.
After which did they just pack and go home.
As apparently the daily star still features topless models on page 3.
So why not then switch there campaign to this similar red top? Or was there problem only with the sun.

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist. However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Junkyard you [i]really[/i] don't know what a strawmen argument is.

Its a bit of a difference, maybe, but the main reason the sun stopped was because they lost money, no moral epiphany.

I would be very surprised if the main reason they stopped doing it was so that they could figured they could spin it into something that benefited them. They could quite easily relaunch later "bigger, better and boobier than ever!!1!" if their sales fell significantly, assuming they haven't already.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

No. No no no, you're projecting your misrepresentations onto everyone else for validation now. The end result is something which [i]you[/i] might call censorship or a ban. No-one else here. You might as well call it a cheese sandwich if we're redefining words on the fly.

I can't work out why you're so absolutely fixated about bans. Either you really, really Just Don't Get It or you're trolling, surely.

the loudest bunch rule

The irony is that they've been the quietest bunch for centuries and that's sort of the problem. Now that people who have spent their lives marginalised are suddenly finding voices on the Internet, a lot of the people who have (often obliviously) enjoyed positions of privilege for years (white cis heterosexual men, basically) are being forced to ask questions and maybe now feeling a little uncomfortable.

Now, we could just make our own minds up in isolation as to what words like "equality" means, or we could actually listen to those people who are feeling marginalised and attempt to find out why. Going "of course I see you as an equal, it's all those other men who are the problem" whilst patting them on the head and telling them to run along and stop being so silly is so very easy to do. Hell, I've been guilty of it myself because for a while I didn't get it either.

Apparently there problem was only with the sun.
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Page_3 ]no mote page 3[/url]

So it was more no more page 3 in the sun, than actual no more page 3

However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Yes. It's use of the word "forcing."

Junkyard you really don't know what a strawmen argument is.

He really does, I'm afraid.

46 to go! We going to smash this before the day is out at this rate.

I have not read this thread fully. Come on 28 pages?!

Max tyres made a rude calendar?

It's only women?

Make a men's version for women too then.

Or don't buy either.

Where can I look at this calendar for evaluation?

cougar, I've explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban. The fact that you don't understand the point being made makes me think its deliberate. Perhaps not but it does seem to be you who is 'fixated on bans'.

Apparently you dont know what a strawman is either.

Junkyard you really don't know what a strawmen argument is.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]
1.fail to recognize their own lack of skill
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others
3.fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
4.recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill

So we have the first three every page but point four is going to be the real struggle
Here is one

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist. However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Just one more baby step...go on you are amongst friends

EDIT: honestly you are embarrassing yourself now and are so ignorant you dont even realise how daft this is making you look

Its not even debatable as your every post its to attack an argument not being made.

I've explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban. The fact that you don't understand the point being made makes me think its deliberate. Perhaps not but it does seem to be you who is 'fixated on bans'.

As for not understand your argument we do understand it BUT to suggest that not doing somethign through choice is the same as being forced to not do it by it being banned is so so stupid a point its not worth debating though some have actually tried

As for fixated on bans you have been saying it for about 10 pages and ignoring the fact no one has said it....you must be trolling as no one can be this dense.

What we want to do is show them that what they have done can be damaging

well hope you have better luck that you have had with this thread 😉