@crowriver and then said something else after it. I didn't say that every tradition which gets ditched was ditched because of logic or reason, nor that I have faith in logic or reason to eventually destroy all other traditions, anachronistic or otherwise.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Why does cycling have podium girls?
(106 posts)- Started 12 years ago by Two Tired
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
@wingpig, and the next thing you said was: it's an established thing that people will sometimes do things for money if the opportunity is made available.
Which, unless I've misinterpreted, implies that 'podium girls' are only doing it for the money (or maybe only 'sometimes'). Which seems too simplistic. One could equally reduce the efforts of the racing cyclists as being just for the money (or maybe only 'sometimes') which may have been truer at the beginnings of the sport, the 'tradition' if you like. Most people would argue that is a gross oversimplification. I'd say that to suggest the women are only doing it for the money (even if only 'sometimes') is a gross oversimplification too.
Posted 12 years ago # -
While the aspiration to equality between the sexes is laudable, the biology will make that very difficult. Within an admittedly wide range of phenotypes, those darned Y chromosomes mean that most men are anatomically, physiologically and psychologically significantly different from most females (and vice-versa). Because reproduction is the raison d'etre of life itself (at least at the molecular level - lets leave the religious and philosophical considerations to one side for now) the appreciation of the female form, as a mechanism for identifying a suitable mate, is hard-wired into most men's senses. Advertisers have known that - and exploited it - for decades. Actually, a lot of women have been exploiting it for millenia too, and although I am sometimes a little disturbed by what my eldest daughter choses to wear when she goes out for an evening, I sometimes wonder if the extent of my outrage would have been any different had we been born 150 years ago and she fluttered a seductive eyelid and slyly revealed a little ankle as she walked down the street.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the complete covering of the female form (as in the Burka) is similarly perceived by many as a device for oppression of females, but it's also the logical conclusion to the measures for taking the female form off the agenda in everyday interactions between the sexes. In an equal society I guess men would wear them too, to ensure there were no visual clues that could be used to discriminate between the sexes, but that would make reproduction a little more difficult, because individuals have to be able to identify members of the opposite sex... which means being able to perceive the differences...which is where I came in...
I'm desperately trying not to put any actual or implied value judgments on any of this. For me, my concern is not so much whether men or women are objectified (they are, and it's been going on as long as the human race) but that my daughter returns home safely from a night out and that no male (mis)interprets her dress sense as an excuse to behave inappropriately towards her.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Which, unless I've misinterpreted, implies that 'podium girls' are only doing it for the money"
You've misinterpreted, but at least you suspected so. Note my careful use of the words "people" and "things". The intended direction of the point was more along the lines of it being impossible for anyone to be a (paid, in money) prize-presentation assistant (human) unless someone first creates that job with an attached (monetary, wholly or partially) payment for a specific event or sport or organisation.
Posted 12 years ago # -
unless someone first creates that job with an attached (monetary, wholly or partially) payment for a specific event or sport or organisation.
And that post only exists because advertisers believe consumers want it, well they must or they wouldn't consume the product.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@steveo Aye, though some wants have been created through the suggestion of need.
@notsteveo Please note the use of the nonspecific "some" in the statement above.
Posted 12 years ago # -
And sometimes people consume products despite the mechanisms used to promote them rather than because of them.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@steveo Aye, though some wants have been created through the suggestion of need.
The very basis of modern advertising, you* don't need new improved wonder wheel but...
*the royal you.
And sometimes people consume products despite the mechanisms used to promote them rather than because of them.
That doesn't really matter though, you implicitly accept the promotional mechanisms through the consumption. If the product, its production or its marketing really offend your sensibilities the only way to exercise your objection is not to consume the product. All that matters to any company, bigger a few employees, is the bottom line.
Posted 12 years ago # -
All that matters to any company, bigger a few employees, is the bottom line.
That is a very culturally specific statement. This only applies to the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, and is in any case only true for certain types of businesses. In Europe, Asia, they have very different ideas about how businesses should be run, corporate responsibility and the role of workers.
impossible for anyone to be a (paid, in money) prize-presentation assistant (human) unless someone first creates that job with an attached (monetary, wholly or partially) payment for a specific event or sport or organisation.
Similarly it's impossible for anyone to be a (paid, in money) professional racing cyclist unless someone first creates that job with an attached (monetary, wholly or partially) payment for a specific event or sport or organisation.
Which is where the sponsors come in. The Tour has been a sponsored race since the beginning, it was a newspaper that organised the race and put up the prize money initially. Presumably they did this to sell more newspapers through (exclusive?) coverage of the event. So media hype, and mediated representations of the Tour have been there all along, together with the incentive of monetary reward.
Anyway, I thought I'd ask Googol how long the Tour has had 'podium girls', and received an interesting reply. I've no idea if it's accurate but it sounds plausible.
"Back in 1925 women were still allowed to enter Le Tour de France with the men, and back then women were a lot stronger than they are now. Although no woman had ever come in the top ten they had come close but in 1925 that changed, Frank Bollacelli came first with Anne Poulain and Mary Marrachio coming in second and third!
It shook the cycling world, Henri Desgrange was outraged and from that day forth women could no longer race alongside the men. This decision caused quite a furore and to appease the public in 1931 Desgrange agreed that two local girls should always congratulate the winner of each stage as a nod to the unprecedented achievement of both Poulain and Marrachio."
http://www.thefootdown.co.uk/2013/07/04/le-tour-de-france-2013-day-6-podium-girls/
Posted 12 years ago # -
(By the way I think that last quote was a provocative hoax, but you never know...)
Intriguing perspective on the Tour and the role of women:
http://takingthelane.com/2012/06/22/guest-post-why-dont-women-ride-the-tour-de-france/
Finally, as some will know there used to be a female only Tour de France:
Posted 12 years ago # -
Oh, and for those interested in women's cycle racing, we just missed most of the Giro Rosa (formerly Giro Donne), the world's longest cycle race for women.
Still two days to go though, the finale is on Sunday.
If you have cable/satellite and can get Italian channel RAIsport 2, they have highlights from each day at 20:00 (21:00 BST?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giro_d%27Italia_Femminile
https://twitter.com/GiroRosa2013
https://www.facebook.com/girorosa2013
(Last year's) Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/Girodonne
Posted 12 years ago # -
Sorry guys. We can argue the ins and outs all we like, but as my earlier post suggested implicitly, if you're watching it with kids - especially girls - and have the most minimal level of awareness of gender issues, it is impossible not to think 'what message is is sending' about our society and what we value.
If you're not watching it With kids, I suggest you still ask yourself that question. Even if yu're not concerned with the broader issues, at the very least it's worth thinking about what message it send to young girls who might potentially want to race - like all one Olympians. Would w have heard of any of them if it wasn't for the Olympics?
Posted 12 years ago # -
My eldest daughter does pick up on some of the sexist language on TV to the extent that I don't really like watching Mike Brewer and Ed China any more.
My wife loves watching the Tour. The sight of two hundred mens bums wiggling about in tight fitting lycra is a major part of the appeal (she says).
So colour me - confused.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Wow, you know I'm glad that the feminism debate is now so common that it has reached CCE but i cant read the whole thread because THE GUYS ARE MAKING ME CRINGE. This is straight up simple privilege, and the intellectual backflips your doing to avoid the fact are disgusting to behold.
Unfortunately this always happens as most liberal men consider feminism 'solved' and have a hard time examining their own role in preserving the cultural and social position of women as underclass, as ornaments or trophys.
Posted 12 years ago # -
the fact that fit people are attractive is beside the point, the fit men are depicted doing something heroic, the fit women are only there to highlight the men's heroism. Its not about boobs, its about roles.
Posted 12 years ago # -
from its_me_knees "While the aspiration to equality between the sexes is laudable, the biology will make that very difficult. Within an admittedly wide range of phenotypes, those darned Y chromosomes mean that most men are anatomically, physiologically and psychologically significantly different from most females (and vice-versa)."
Classic, in this case the writer has automatically assumed that because women are diffrent from men that they cannot be equal to them.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The thing is any overarching ideology such as patriarchy is essentially invisible from the inside. Only the outsiders see the prejudices inherent in the culture because thoes predjudices dont effect the cis majority. To understand as a male what effect the podium girls have you have to put yourself in the place of someone who has only ever had podium girls to aspire too, we can all dream about being Bradly Wiggins, but its only very recently that anyone could dream of being Victoria Pendleton.
Progress is being made but its not being helped by refusing to accept that thease outdated images of females do not belong in our society anymore. Would you rather your daughters grew up to be Ellen Mcarthur or Pam Anderson?
And the sad thing is we oppress ourselves with it too, its called internalized socialization. Men are just as trapped into being strong, confident, breadwinning baby makers. this article may be illuminating. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125512616
Posted 12 years ago # -
ruggtomcat: "the fact that fit people are attractive is beside the point, the fit men are depicted doing something heroic, the fit women are only there to highlight the men's heroism. Its not about boobs, its about roles."
You're right of course. I was trying to be funny in a context which was inappropriate.
Posted 12 years ago # -
+100 what Ruggtomcat said!
And my own personal thanks to Cyclingmollie for:
"You're right of course. I was trying to be funny in a context which was inappropriate."
Posted 12 years ago # -
I was trying to be funny in a context which was inappropriate.
Peter Sagan probably said something similar in his video apology earlier in the year. I dunno, I didn't watch it. The reaction to his inappropriate behaviour (bordering on sexual harrassment) was interesting. He was roundly condemned from all quarters, not only for his lewd behaviour but also for breaking the rule regarding the podium women: you can look but don't touch.
The tension between this perfectly reasonable rule and the quasi-sexualised nature of the ritual itself (though rather formal, with only 'acquaintance' kissing allowed) lends the whole spectacle a bit of a frisson. The women in these ceremonies are a bit like latter day Vestals, garlanding the returning victors. They are dressed quite formally (a bit like airline or hotel staff) which is in stark contrast to the equivalent roles in motorsports (or, it seems, darts).
There's a formality and a chasteness about the TdF rituals which makes them distinctive. I can't help but think this is partly due to France's (ostensible) Catholicism. Personally I see these differences as important enough that they codify how the victors (and by extension the audience) ought to behave. The rituals do not suspend wider norms about how people who don't know each other well should behave to one another. Whether these qualities make the rituals any less acceptable to those who view them as subjugating women is neither here nor there.
Posted 12 years ago # -
We have had feminism debates here before, but never so well articulated. thank you ruggtomcat!
The problem with our debates is, i think, that many of our regular posters think of themselves as relatively 'liberal' or 'progressive' but then find themselves justifying gendered roles and being intelligent blokes, they realize the hypocrisy of their positions, and that makes them uncomfortable, so they argue more stridently or exit entirely.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Rugg, SRD, others, do you watch the sport? Don't you consider the hypocrisy in consuming the product despite your moral objections to it?
Posted 12 years ago # -
How many of us actually watch all the way to the podium?
And aren't the podium girls just a way of trying to make people watch the medal ceremony and get more coverage for it?
In which case, optimistically they're just an example of what some marketing person things the public wants to see?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Steveo, I watch the news and go to concerts, when there is only one culture you have to participate in it, but you also have to try and change it.
there is no 'feminists world cup' but I would defo watch it if I had the choice. Just because I like cycle racing means I have to agree to institutionalised sexism? Dont be silly, I can like cycling without agreeing with the way its presented. Its not viable to make a whole new cycling federation but its totally viable to change the one we have, especially in these 'enlightened' times.
Its a non argument really, its like saying 'dont like the goverment? then move!' we all live here, it should be accessible for all.
Posted 12 years ago # -
oh and thanks SRD, i totally agree about the liberal men being unwilling to face their own privilege, this is only the third peer group I've had this discussion with...
Posted 12 years ago # -
The point I was trying to make is that the hosts are a marketing tool, when you buy into the product (sport) you support the marketing perception that pretty girls sell cycling gear. It's a commercial transaction just like any other.
Your position is a bit like objecting to Foxconn's workers rights but still buying an iPhone becuase they make the only phone you like. You can try and change the system from the inside but big companies only really notice the bottom line and as I said earlier disgruntled eye balls are worth just as much.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Actually, I think that as a consumer i have much more right to object to stuff. Obviously boycotts have their place as well, but in this case, I don't object to the TdF, I object to one aspect of how they present prizes. So presumably better to object than boycott?
Voice rather than exit or loyalty, in the venerable words of the late and much missed Alfred Hirschmann.
Posted 12 years ago # -
So what's the verdict on this year's outfits? As ever nice classy stuff for yellow, and I'm pleased to see the polka dot outfits are big improvement on previous years. But none of them as classy as the Giro dresses.
Posted 12 years ago # -
So presumably better to object than boycott?
And what form that objection? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you and I aren't the first to think of a writing a letter. So lets assume this conversation was had a couple of years ago by two very similar people and a sternly worded letter was received by the tour organisers. Lets also assume nothing changed, since nothing has changed, now what? Is you conscience assuaged by the letter have you done all you can?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Not sure what you want from me steveo. I'm a member of a number of campaigns, boycott a number of companies/places of origin of goods, sign more petitions than I ought, and spend a good deal of my 'free' time campaigning for safer cycling.
But if I object to what podium girls represent in an on-line forum, I must also boycott everything to do with cycle racing or else I'm the hypocrit?
Posted 12 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
