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

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://singletrackmag.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..?

If Maxxis HAVE pulled the calendar, I hope this Adele or TWC will fill the funding shortfall to Macmillan themselves. Easy to be outspoken, harder to follow things right through and mitigate losses to a charity as a result of her actions if that does turn out to be the case.

Looks like McMillan make a lot of money from a spot of objectification.
[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uni-female-rowing-team-strip-6897694 ]here[/url] is just one of many although I am sure some of the antis will disagree with this aswell but some may think this is ok as its not advertising tyres.

There are literally hundreds of these calendars modelled by male and female, lots of beautiful university people to hunky firemen to middle age people who are well, not as toned as there younger counter parts. Reason being for what ever reason nudity must clearly sell. But maybe these calendars could be classed as art by some, so again to some rendering them acceptable.

Apparently Ryan air did a bikini babe calender from 2008 to 2014 using there cabin staff as models (whos idea it was in the first place) but stopped due to a campaign claiming it demeaning and sexist, there last calender alone raised £78,000 for a children's cancer charity.

I am with Dan and don't think these calendars cause or compound sexist views and a great many people can own and view them without reverting to flashing on the underground or treating woman like second class citizens.
And campaigning against them because some undesirable people may buy them is like campaigning to have all cars limited to 70 because some people drive like knobs.
If all such calendars did disappear chairities would loose millions.

If Maxxis HAVE pulled the calendar, I hope this Adele or TWC will fill the funding shortfall to Macmillan

I'm sure Maxxis could afford to fund the shortfall themselves if they've acknowledged the calendar was inappropriate. Or maybe they could just organise some other way of raising funds which wasn't sexist?

It's the LA defence again.

So what do we think about the ladies from the Oxford Rugby Club?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/620957/Brainy-Oxford-rugby-babes-strip-sexy-nude-calendar-match-Cambridge

I'm going to raise some money for a donkey sanctuary by publishing a calendar with me drop kicking a different kitten every month

do you really need "context" explained to you?

Can you honestly not see why or how a charity calendar featuring non models posing in parody is different from a calender designed to sell a product* featuring models posed in a way designed to arouse?

Our do you really just see naked women, and just can't see past that?

* I'm aware the Maxxis calendar was raising money for McMillan, but none of us are deceived as to the real motive, right?

Maxxis could just donate some money without a babe calendar...

The whole idea of a fundraising product/event is not that the brand running the product/event donates the cash - they provide the resource/raw materials to sell and so raise the cash.

[quote=andyrm ]The whole idea of a fundraising product/event is not that the brand running the product/event donates the cash - they provide the resource/raw materials to sell and so raise the cash.

But they could easily afford to. Charity fundraising is so often a load of BS.

Some of you seem to be missing that this is a marketing exercise, they aren't doing this charity calendar out of the goodness of their hearts. In reality it's coming out of their marketing budget and I'm sure they expect to see a return on it - this is after all the sort of thing which they might otherwise give away for free. If they were really serious about supporting charity they would just donate the money.

[quote=aracer ]

andyrm  » The whole idea of a fundraising product/event is not that the brand running the product/event donates the cash - they provide the resource/raw materials to sell and so raise the cash.

The same could be true of many, many fundraising efforts. We could start with just about any charity supported by the Royal Family.

do you really need "context" explained to you?

No obviously not.

here is just one of many although I am sure some of the antis will disagree with this aswell but some may think this is ok as its not advertising tyres.

I already said some people would be in the above camp, and that would be you.

But equally I am sure some people would still be opposed. As once all the tyre calender have been self censored the flasher will be left no choice but to snap up all the calendars that don't Obvs.

Some of you seem to be missing that this is a marketing exercise, they aren't doing this charity calendar out of the goodness of their hearts. In reality it's coming out of their marketing budget and I'm sure they expect to see a return on it - this is after all the sort of thing which they might otherwise give away for free.

Do you have an inside line on Maxxis' global marketing strategy and budgets?

And saying that they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts is also pretty cynical. Having worked in major corporates for the last 15 years, every time there is some kind of charity activity, the choice of charity tends to be chosen by staff/management and is based on some kind of personal tie to a sad life experience (kid with cancer, untimely employee's death etc etc) leading to the final choice.

The company then usually allocates seed capital/resource funding to produce the event/product, which is then targeted to generate in the region of 10 times that initial investment for the charity.

That in my book is a good thing.

[quote=andyrm ]Do you have an inside line on Maxxis' global marketing strategy and budgets?

No, but I know a couple of people who are marketing directors for major brands (and have benefited directly from marketing department money).

What you seem to be describing is the sort of charity stuff companies do relatively quietly - which clearly isn't the case at all here, where there's a lot of "woo Maxxis" fanfare, along with something as I just pointed out which is clearly simply Maxxis marketing material.

there was mutch ado about the pirelli calendar "empowering women" i think this is a buzzword because it just seemed to be full of growlers or wrinklies

REALLY 😯 http://pirellicalendar.pirelli.com/en/the-cal-2016/shots

oh and just for comparison you can look at all their calendars over the decades

http://pirellicalendar.pirelli.com/en/time-machine

Jesus.

I'm going to talk about bikes now - see ya.

Still stuck on first base I see.

Why not STW?

Like this, perhaps?

http://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/singletrack-readers-raise-16k-for-cancer-charities/

[quote=Cougar ]Why not STW?

Like this, perhaps?
http://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/singletrack-readers-raise-16k-for-cancer-charities/

[quote=chip ]

do you really need "context" explained to you?

No obviously not.

You simply don't agree with the concept, given your apparent disregard?

But equally I am sure some people would still be opposed.

Any on this thread? It's a bit strawmanny isn't it?

As once all the tyre calender have been self censored the flasher will be left no choice but to snap up all the calendars that don't Obvs.

I'm sure there will always be material available for such chaps - that's really not the point at all.

[quote=scotroutes ]STW Staff Hunks

oxymoron

- that's really not the point at all.

Fiona clearly stated it is though and linked this calender to her being groped and flashed at.

You probably need to re-read what she wrote.

I can recognise a concept and still disagree with it.

You probably need to re-read what she wrote.

Maybe you do.

One final attempt to explain why I'm

not comfortable with the calender (if anyone in this thread remembers what the debate was originally about)...
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.
Do I blame the calender for those experiences? Of course not.
But...
Do I see the calender as both SYMPTOMATIC AND SUPPORTIVE of a society that says it's ok to treat women like that? Absolutely.
Do I want the calender banned? No.
Do I hope that type of marketing finally dies out as support for it dies? Yes.
If anybody is still struggling to understand the above I honestly don't know what to suggest.

 

Do I blame the calender for those experiences? Of course not.

??

From personal experience, I'd say that the strength with which these views are held is inversely proportional to the intellect of the person holding them.

Binners, page one of this thread. 😆

And saying that they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts is also pretty cynical.

WHether it is a good thing or a bad thing is different from debating their motives. which is clearly a win for them and the charity at the lowest cost for them [ this may not be a major factor it might just be a lucky coincidence].To argue otherwise is incredibly naive.

Mole grips I said linked old bean.

Do I see the calender as both SYMPTOMATIC AND SUPPORTIVE of a society that says it's ok to treat women like that? Absolutely.

This isn't going to end well.

Gobochul, page 1 🙂

Mole grips I said linked old bean.

Yes, but the causative link is the opposite of what was implied.

And saying that they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts is also pretty cynical.

Whena company does a massive PUBLIC charity events publicised on their own website /social media/general then they are clearly doing it for reasons other than pure altruism. They can do this in secret if they do not wish the company to gain by being associated with the charity and with raising money. Hell they could even donate some of their profit in secret to a charity. yt they chose the public way of raising money that costs them NOTHING beyond time.
WHether it is a good thing or a bad thing is different from debating their motives. which is clearly a win for them and the charity at the lowest cost for them [ this may not be a major factor it might just be a lucky coincidence].To argue otherwise is incredibly naive..

Is that what STW did, raise money in secret.
Should I be cynical about there motives.

I really would not have bought this up but cougar felt he had too.

She said, this calender supported a society that says it's ok to treat women (grope and flash) like that? Absolutely.

And maaxis did donate there own money, they matched calendar sales pound for pound.

She said, this calender supported a society that says it's ok to treat women (grope and flash) like that? Absolutely.

She said
a) Does she blame the calendar? No.
b) the calendar is symptomatic of an abusive society
c) the calendar is supportive of an abusive society

so 1 out of 3 things she said can be interpreted to be critical of the calendar itself.

Talking about "society" is a bit tricky - the societies with the highest levels of equality tend to have open attitudes to pornography (Sweden, Denmark) whereas the opposite is also true (Saudi).

Did she link this calender to people flashing and groping? Yes or no.

Whena company does a massive PUBLIC charity events publicised on their own website /social media/general then they are clearly doing it for reasons other than pure altruism. They can do this in secret if they do not wish the company to gain by being associated with the charity and with raising money. Hell they could even donate some of their profit in secret to a charity. yt they chose the public way of raising money that costs them NOTHING beyond time.

"Massive public events"? There wasn't even a link on their website that I could see. It was a mailshot to their existing customers. One of which took the hump and posted a massive public overreaction to the internets.

It kind of has to be public to raise any money.

chip - the complete inability of some on here to follow simple logic is beyond belief. This lot can't tell the difference between saying this specific calendar is OK and making a case defending all sexists and sexist behaviour in society.

So, if you want to brand everyone with a different opinion as you a sexist that's fine. It just makes you look daft and weakens your case against actual sexism.

Did she link this calender to people flashing and groping? Yes or no.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Now I Am not an intelectual Titan but I believe that statement is a straw man.

Am not an intelectual Titan but I believe that statement is a straw man.

I never taught logic, but I believe it's not. It's the usual illustration that "yes or no" answers are inadequate.