# 'SEXY MT.BIKE CALENDAR: Women's mt.bike Club - thoughts??



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I was curious if any one would be willing to share their thoughts on the following discussion about using "sexualized" images of women by a women's mountain bike club. 
http://muddbunnies.com/index.php?op...&catid=41:muddbunnie-news&Itemid=63#yvComment
Does it matter? Is there something at stake? Are people making a big deal over nothing? What does it mean to be feminine in a male dominated sport? How should women try to get noticed/perceived in this sport? As women in the sport, do you feel you get treated differently? badly? the same? do you care?


----------



## MtbRN (Jun 8, 2006)

My thought is that I have seen some HAWT guys riding mountain bikes and wouldn't it be nice if they posed for a similar calendar? After all, the sport IS predominantly male...

And maybe it would draw more women into the sport, if they saw that a buncha' good-looking men participated?


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

:thumbsup:


----------



## verslowrdr (Mar 22, 2004)

Honestly... All I'm thinking is that if I posed for that calendar, they'd be loosing money and maybe even hurting people by prompting them to scratch their eyeballs out, lol....

If some gals want to do it, it's their choice not mine. Whatever. If my friends did it... I'd probably buy the calendar and store it away for show-and-tell on their 60th b-day party. :devil:


----------



## Blksocks (Dec 22, 2009)

Not sure if a male opinion counts here but things like these would push younger females to ride more and quit possibly get into this sport/hobby/etc. Plus the "HAWT" looking guys wouldn't mind some female calenders... I know I don't want to be marking dates with some male on a bike posing. :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: 

The Calender would make for good role-modeling?


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

A calendar featuring hot, sexy mountain biking chicks promoting a hot sexy sport... i have no problem with that. It attacts attention and sponsorship.


----------



## MtbRN (Jun 8, 2006)

Blksocks said:


> Not sure if a male opinion counts here but things like these would push younger females to ride more and quit possibly get into this sport/hobby/etc. Plus the "HAWT" looking guys wouldn't mind some female calenders...


Ummm... yeah. Like there was _any_ doubt what the male opinion of this idea would be? You notice that no one even bothered to ask?


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

but you gotta admit that it wasn't just the typical dude response that simply cheers the sexy ladies on...:rockon: he's saying that it could actually encourage more women to join the sport...


----------



## TheotherH (Jan 21, 2004)

canadiana said:


> Does it matter? Is there something at stake? Are people making a big deal over nothing? How should women try to get noticed/perceived in this sport? As women in the sport, do you feel you get treated differently? badly? the same? do you care?


There will always be critics voicing their disdain for someone else's action when it doesn't suit their personal beliefs or speaks to their insecurities. Vancouver firemen pose to raise money for a specialized burn unit; the Muddbunnies pose to raise money to support club activities that allow women of all riding levels to learn and enjoy in a welcoming and fun environment. Why is one okay and the other not?

BTW - I was in the first Muddbunnie calendar. I ride with both guys and gals. Did I get treated differently? No. If someone didn't like what I did, so be it; I'm confident in who I am and what I stand for.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Nerdgirl (Mar 13, 2007)

This is a really tough one for me.

On the one hand, using sexuality for power is very second-generation feminist. I'm a fan of people being comfortable with and proud of their bodies - particularly when the reason they look good is that they're very athletic. A lot of younger women aren't into the "butch mountain bike" image, so something like this (as the male poster said) could be positive for the sport. Also, we'd all prefer to have guys think "female mountain biker? HOT" rather than "female mountain biker? MANLY".

On the other hand, this could be seen as objectification (even though the participants are all willing). It could make current female mountain bikers uncomfortable if they don't want to be perceived as purely sex objects, but rather as complete people. I don't want to think that the guys I ride with are constantly wondering how I would look in a scantily clad calendar. But that's probably naive!

I don't personally feel I get treated any differently. I hang with the guys, try to keep up with most of them and enjoy it when they tease others because I "chicked" them. I think it helps that I ride with my husband, so I'm not available. I do have to say, I find it very uncomfortable when a very flirty girl comes on our nice comfortable rides, as it really changes the dynamic.

As for how women should get noticed/perceived in this sport? I personally think that should be based on what the women themselves want. Some like the sexy personna. Some are comfortable with feminine but not aggressively sexy (e.g. Emily Batty). And some just don't care. I just don't like it when the marketing machine jumps all over women's images.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Personally, I would be more likely to buy it with just the MTB'g pictures, without the cheesecake additions, and would be a lot happier seeing it in the LBS that way too. It's kinda sad if that would not sell. But I'm not concerned it will impact me personally either...the guys buying these are probably at home j**king off, not riding on my trails.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

That is some pretty bizarre juxtaposition of images. Ripping chick in full body armor, overlaid with gal in garters?

I'm not going to repeat much of what is being said. Opinions on this kind of thing are always all over the board, from the "orn-objectifying women" POV to the "sure I'd buy it" contingent. Are you looking for support for any particular view point?


----------



## connie (Mar 16, 2004)

I have no problem with it at all. I think there IS a tendency for guys to stereotype female mountain bikers and assume that if a woman is attractive she can't ride. Which obviously makes no sense at all - there's no real correlation - just an assumed one. Assuming that all female mountain bikers look alike is ridiculous - and about as valid as "all women love the color pink". Granted, it can be a little hard to tell what female DH/FR riders look like since are usually hidden under a full face helmet and body armor. So I can definitely understand the desire to show that you're not hiding under the gear because you hate the way you look.

Also - while it's definitely more extreme/common with female athletes, it's silly to think that male athletes aren't sexualized too for extra publicity as well. I'm just happy that female mountain bikers wear appropriate gear similar to what the guys wear to ride/race in - just think - it could be like volleyball in the Olympics where the guys are wearing shirts and long shorts and the women are wearing thongs and bikini tops...


----------



## verslowrdr (Mar 22, 2004)

connie said:


> ... just think - it could be like volleyball in the Olympics where the guys are wearing shirts and long shorts and the women are wearing thongs and bikini tops...


Oh GREAT- now I'm imagining riding and wiping out in a thong + bikini top, lol..... DO.NOT.WANT!!!!!


----------



## screampint (Dec 10, 2001)

verslowrdr said:


> Oh GREAT- now I'm imagining riding and wiping out in a thong + bikini top, lol..... DO.NOT.WANT!!!!!


HA! Thanks for spreading that vision!


----------



## screampint (Dec 10, 2001)

I'm more interested in discussions on what girls can do as opposed to what they should, shouldn't, or can't do. Lets give women the opportunity to do what they want and not worry their decisions they have made for themselves.

Oh, yes, I do get treated differently, but it has come a long way from how I was treated 17 years ago, when I started this sport.


----------



## Blksocks (Dec 22, 2009)

MtbRN said:


> Ummm... yeah. Like there was _any_ doubt what the male opinion of this idea would be? You notice that no one even bothered to ask?


Are you going to beat me up and steal my lunch money for what I wrote?


----------



## screampint (Dec 10, 2001)

Naw! She wouldn't do that, you would enjoy it too much....

Did I just type that out loud? Must be the cabernet I'm drinking...


----------



## stingray4540 (Jun 25, 2009)

mtbxplorer said:


> Personally, I would be more likely to buy it with just the MTB'g pictures, without the cheesecake additions, and would be a lot happier seeing it in the LBS that way too. It's kinda sad if that would not sell. But I'm not concerned it will impact me personally either...the guys buying these are probably at home j**king off, not riding on my trails.


Sorry honey, but if we've got an internet connection, we aint gonna be jacking off to some calendar...









As far as how *women* feel about how they are perceived by men, let me give you a guys perspective:
If you're good looking, we're gonna give you a once over and maybe even wonder what you look like without all them clothes on. If you're not that good looking, then you've got no worries, we are as likely to picture you naked as we would another guy. So, just 'cause you are a women doesn't mean we look at you as a sex object. Oh, and just 'cause you're good looking doesn't mean we won't respect you for your mad skillz if you got them. And, just because we might appreciate you for your feminine beauty doesn't mean we have any other intentions. Believe me, I'll appreciate all day, but that's about all I'm interested in doing, I'm married to a beautiful woman and that's all the drama I need.

P.S. I really actually like this calendar and how they show both a riding pic and a sexy pic. Otherwise, if they are just in there riding gear, who's to say there is even a woman under all those clothes, pads, and giant helmet? Might as well be guys on those bikes for all I care. Like I said, I like it, shows there ability and there sexuality, nice combo. They look good, and they could kick my ass...:thumbsup:


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

formica said:


> That is some pretty bizarre juxtaposition of images. Ripping chick in full body armor, overlaid with gal in garters?
> 
> I'm not going to repeat much of what is being said. Opinions on this kind of thing are always all over the board, from the "orn-objectifying women" POV to the "sure I'd buy it" contingent. Are you looking for support for any particular view point?


No, not at all. I mean I have my own opinion, but I am more into having a discussion about this to see what other people have to say.
For me there are different ways of talking about it. On one end we could just talk about the images themselves and how they operate (the fact that it's a calendar...), on what type of a public, and the type of work they are actually doing in terms of feminism etc. and whether that is positive or negative; or the role/image of women in sports, how it works in terms of marketing, or how it attracts or detracts women to /from the club. We could talk about how it affects younger girls (likely in negative and positive (as some have pointed out)....

I'm not crazy about the calendar, personally. I find it a bit cheesy and yes, objectifying, but that doesn't mean it's "bad". It obviously does sell (as the comments on the mudbunnies site says, sex/sexual depictions of women usually do) so it's a good way to raise $ for the club. Not sure if I would cal it empowering. I think it could be, but the images would have to be a bit different, still about the female body perhaps, but less obviously catering to the male expectation... I think it would be kind of nice if they did switch it up next year and did something less cheesy and predictable...but that's just my opinion
I am impressed with the number of responses! Keep it coming! :thumbsup:


----------



## screampint (Dec 10, 2001)

I wouldn't buy one, but it does make me consider how to help out in other ways. Talked to another mountainbiker (who is male), he said that as long as it really is the same woman as in the skimpy pic, he thinks it's cool. He wouldn't buy one, but he likes the concept behind the group.

My lesbian sister might really like it, as she is all about empower women with there abilities and their bodies.

Me, I like the fact that it could possibly get a few guys to think that just because a woman is athletic, doesn't mean she looks like a ****.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

screampint said:


> I'm more interested in discussions on what girls can do as opposed to what they should, shouldn't, or can't do. Lets give women the opportunity to do what they want and not worry their decisions they have made for themselves.
> 
> I'm not interested in that either. I was just interested in having a discussion about women in mountain biking. I'm also interested in visual culture and media more generally, which is what I study, so that is likely why the calendar caught my eye. I've also had several discussions with girls who are strongly opposed to it, and some who totally support it. I'm not worried about their decisions, just interested. And as you can see it has sparked a conversation. I have no real stake in the direction this goes... and I'm interested in all opinions


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

canadiana said:


> I was curious if any one would be willing to share their thoughts on the following discussion about using "sexualized" images of women by a women's mountain bike club.
> https://muddbunnies.com/index.php?o...&catid=41:muddbunnie-news&Itemid=63#yvComment
> Does it matter? Is there something at stake? Are people making a big deal over nothing? What does it mean to be feminine in a male dominated sport? How should women try to get noticed/perceived in this sport? As women in the sport, do you feel you get treated differently? badly? the same? do you care?


https://www.filehurricane.com/viewerthumbnails/429200825033PM_493.jpg

I should probably add that the above picture is supposed to be funny, fair point, but funny.
So if you are easily offended, don't click.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

stingray4540 said:


> Sorry honey, but if we've got an internet connection, we aint gonna be jacking off to some calendar...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

Is there nowhere in this world that you can get away from this crap?!?! Why does everything a woman does have to be reduced to her sexuality?


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

CaveGiant said:


> https://www.filehurricane.com/viewerthumbnails/429200825033PM_493.jpg
> 
> I should probably add that the above picture is supposed to be funny, fair point, but funny.
> So if you are easily offended, don't click.


haha! yes, it is funny and I don't think its that offensive at all...but not sure why you posted it since no one has or complained about sexism so I'm not sure who you're directing this at? Perhaps just stirring the pot?? ...
But I think that many women (and men) likely have experienced sexism whether they are ugly or not!


----------



## Plauscha (Jul 24, 2009)

*Hot Chicks Rock*

Okay, I would like to see them riding in bikinis with full body armor over it...
Anything that raises awareness of women on mtn bikes is a good thing...


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

Anything? Gee, that's a big call...


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

I don't buy bike mags to see half-naked women, I wouldn't buy naked women mags to see bikes.
I get this sort of thing with the british motorcycle magazines I buy, these calendars make decent workbench liners. 

considering the market for these things is purely comprised of hormone-addled boys... how exactly would this improve "exposure" to the sport to young women?



anecdote: fold-out pic of a 1428cc Spondon-framed Suzuki Katana with busty brunette blocking the picture, wife laughs and says "you're pissed because you can't see the turbo intake aren't you?".
yeah, I'm THAT guy.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

yup. - in response to above: "Anything? Gee, that's a big call..." 
-i tend to agree


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Blksocks said:


> Not sure if a male opinion counts here but things like these would push younger females to ride more and quit possibly get into this sport/hobby/etc.


I'd really like to hear the logic behind this thought, that this calendar would, " push younger females to ride more and quit[sic] possibly get into this sport/hobby/etc."


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

formica said:


> I'd really like to hear the logic behind this thought, that this calendar would, " push younger females to ride more and quit[sic] possibly get into this sport/hobby/etc."


So would I...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*The Snap On calendar has little to do with tools*

To pretend that an mtb calendar utilizing attractve/sexy women is anything but cheesecake is either naive or obtuse. Sex sells; the theme is simply a vehicle to sidestep taboos.

I think it is a great idea.


----------



## stingray4540 (Jun 25, 2009)

mtbxplorer said:


> No need to be sorry, but like I said, you'll be at home...with your internet connection.
> Tip: Although I'm sure  you meant it in the nicest way possible, women don't visit the women's lounge to be called honey by someone they don't know - we get enough of that in the rest of the world.


Sorry mtbxplorer, don't take it personally, I meant it in a sort of tong in cheek kind of way, as you'll notice my grammer to match in the rest of the post.

Although, regardless of my tone, what I said is true.

Not everything a woman does is reduced to her sexuality as one poster stated. But, guys will always appreciate it when a woman wants to show off her sexuality. And, just because we see one girl parading herself around, doesn't mean we think all women are like that. We are pretty good at compartmentalizing, we can be appreciating a woman's body one minute, then be appreciating a woman's ability to mountain bike, snowboard, etc. the next.

Every woman is a different person, some are more liberal while some are more modest, some are flirty while some are reserved. I can appreciate each woman for who she is individually, if you are reserved and modest, no need to feel obligated to be flirty and liberal, and no need to lash out at those who are. I think the biggest problem is when people try to make other people more like them, or judge others for the way they are. Everyone is different, be who you are and don't worry about how someone else is or acts. If you are comfortable walking around in your birthday suit, *great*! a lot of people will appreciate that. If you aren't comfortable in anything less than a turtle neck and a floor length skirt, *great*! You will be appreciated for your other accomplishments in life. 
If you are well accomplished and like to be naked, you will be appreciated for BOTH. That's why I like this calander as apposed to just a bike calendar or just a girlie calendar. I can appreciate both her body and her riding ability, "Wow, she's a pretty girl, and has a great body!", "Boy, she sure can tear it up on a mtb too! I hope I never come across her on a trail, she'll make me look like terrible."

Oh, and yes, I'll be at home with my internet connection.







When my wife's not available of course...


----------



## brownieinSC (Apr 19, 2004)

If it is the way your club wants to make money, you are all adults and can do what you like. Some women will feel empowered, some uncomfortable, some angry ~ you can't make everyone happy. At least these are actual athletes and not some models acting like they know how to ride.
To say it will get young girls / women to ride is just inane to put it nicely.


----------



## Duvers (Jul 18, 2007)

I say "Go girls...you rock!!!!" I can certainly relate with wanting to bomb the trails yet wanting to be sexy/attractive/non-manish the rest of the time. I think they probably had a lot of fun with this project. Who are we to negatively judge our sisters because they want to be perceived as fab, sexy mountain bikers.

A few years back, I was taking a digital photography class at the local community college. For one of the assignments, we were required to use a tripod and timer to take a picture of ourself doing something that represented us. Besides MTB, I also race jet skis. I was trying to set up a picture that showed me going out from the "darkness" and into the "light" (symbolism of sorts) to go jet skiing, since that is a passion and I'd much rather be outside. Also, had swimsuit top, board shorts, shin protection and riding shoes and was carrying the rest of my gear...pretty typical of how I actually leave the house.

Anyway, the reason for the explanation is the picture/lighting/etc. came out much "sexier" than I intended. Even though it was a picture of getting ready to ride, it frankly surprised me the way it came out and I feel like a fun, fearless female when I see it.


----------



## Plauscha (Jul 24, 2009)

Giant :thumbsup:



Duvers said:


> I say "Go girls...you rock!!!!" I can certainly relate with wanting to bomb the trails yet wanting to be sexy/attractive/non-manish the rest of the time. I think they probably had a lot of fun with this project. Who are we to negatively judge our sisters because they want to be perceived as fab, sexy mountain bikers.
> 
> A few years back, I was taking a digital photography class at the local community college. For one of the assignments, we were required to use a tripod and timer to take a picture of ourself doing something that represented us. Besides MTB, I also race jet skis. I was trying to set up a picture that showed me going out from the "darkness" and into the "light" (symbolism of sorts) to go jet skiing, since that is a passion and I'd much rather be outside. Also, had swimsuit top, board shorts, shin protection and riding shoes and was carrying the rest of my gear...pretty typical of how I actually leave the house.
> 
> Anyway, the reason for the explanation is the picture/lighting/etc. came out much "sexier" than I intended. Even though it was a picture of getting ready to ride, it frankly surprised me the way it came out and I feel like a fun, fearless female when I see it.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

Duvers said:


> I say "Go girls...you rock!!!!" I can certainly relate with wanting to bomb the trails yet wanting to be sexy/attractive/non-manish the rest of the time. I think they probably had a lot of fun with this project. Who are we to negatively judge our sisters because they want to be perceived as fab, sexy mountain bikers.
> 
> A few years back, I was taking a digital photography class at the local community college. For one of the assignments, we were required to use a tripod and timer to take a picture of ourself doing something that represented us. Besides MTB, I also race jet skis. I was trying to set up a picture that showed me going out from the "darkness" and into the "light" (symbolism of sorts) to go jet skiing, since that is a passion and I'd much rather be outside. Also, had swimsuit top, board shorts, shin protection and riding shoes and was carrying the rest of my gear...pretty typical of how I actually leave the house.
> 
> Anyway, the reason for the explanation is the picture/lighting/etc. came out much "sexier" than I intended. Even though it was a picture of getting ready to ride, it frankly surprised me the way it came out and I feel like a fun, fearless female when I see it.


Your picture reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave - leaving the cave = approaching enlightenment, and the way you described it too! haha I like it! But it strikes me a lot differently than the photos in the 2010 mudbunnies calendar - it doesn't look overly staged, in fact if you hadn't mentioned that it was for a project I would almost suspect that it wasn't staged at all...also I suspect that its audience is also much different... there are many other differences that I see, fewer similarities...

I am sure that preparing the calendar was fun. I agree that everyone can do what they want in terms of how they want to express themselves. I just think that what they are trying to achieve with it -attract more members, encourage women in mt biking, "feminize" the sport etc etc (things that people have said) is not achieved through the calendar - like a couple of people below indicated, all it does is that it sells, and it does so for specific reasons that are obvious...
My problem is not with the calendar as it is with a more general attitude in media and culture that defines femininity as sexualized and leaves very little room for alternatives. Are there any? What is even more irritating is some people's refusal to acknowledge that. It becomes of particular concern when I see 10 year olds wearing bootylicious jeans with their thongs sticking out...or Tesco selling padded bras to 7-year-olds... To these girls blatantly advertising their sexuality is being feminine... they're responding to this culture (or perhaps their parents are) as much as the mt. bike girls are in the calendars... It would be nice if at least in sports young girls could have the opportunity to not be frequently exposed to sexualized femininity...fat chance.... I am not saying women should not be sexual, everyone is, it's only human. I just think that feminity is more than that and I have yet to see a mountain bike calendar that celebrates that. 
The calendar under discussion is not "bad", neither are the people who made it. If they're fine with guys discussing their body parts (and sometimes they even mention the biking) in blogs (http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/2735346/) then that's just fine - whatever makes you tick. If seeing yourself in that way makes you happy then all the power to you, I'm not saying that this is wrong. But the calendar is what it is..(and so is the infamous firefighter calendar, which, we've got to admit works a little differently than it's so-called female equivalent). It operates within a much larger framework of "sex sells" and to ignore that is missing the point, that's all. - now I just need to wait for someone to tell me what point I'm missing (I'm sure someone will be up to it... I would love to hear something original (this is not a stab at anyone in particular in this thread--just a rant):rant:


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I don't think you've missed the point, but you do seem a little conflicted. On one hand you can see the difficulty in little girls dressing provocatively, but on the other hand you rationalise the calendar as "it is what it is". I see them as two sides of the same coin.

I also think (and I doubt this is especially original) that it's worth considering why women feel they need to draw attention to their place in the mountain bike world. It seems to me a lot of you feel a lack of support and inclusion in a male dominated sport. Could that be coming from the deep down attitude (although not always deep down enough) of some men that women shouldn't be there. I know it sounds extreme and a touch offensive but just look at the way women are portrayed in our society. We are frequently portrayed as passive, as existing to satisfy the needs of others, as reflections of the males around us and as sexualized objects. You just need to watch TV advertising for an hour to see it spelt out. Marketers aren't completely stupid. They present these images because they have resonance throughout society. That's why sexualized images "sell". But it's also why Nutrigrain is only marketed to boys.

Apart from anything else, the calendar is self-defeating. Usually, the styling of such works show women as, at the very least, sexualized objects (obviously) and as passive (straddling a bike in a bikini and a helmet does not indicate activity). All it does is underscore the very attitudes that lead to women in mountain biking feeling unsupported and not included in the first place.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I agree with you completely. I think that in my effort to not come across as too judgmental I may have given the impression that I'm conflicted. When I said that the calendar is "what it is" I meant that it's there to sell , to make money for the club, because sex always sells, and in a way, it's a "good" way for the cub to raise money, because it works, despite the fact that it objectifies the women in it(that's not rationalizing it). It actively reflects our culture that sees women as you mentioned above, and also contributes to it. What bothers me the most is that it is women themselves that do this, perhaps feeling that by taking control of their own "sexualized" representation they have somehow laid claim to it and the sport. This is a strategy that has been employed by the feminist movement since the 60s, and is outdated, and in many ways it doesn't really achieve what it is supposed to because it simply repeats what has always been done with the female body: at best, it puts it out there simply to be looked at (the passive role, as you mentioned).... 

The calendar uses this type of representation to offset the "non feminine" (and active, as opposed to passive) looking mountain biker beneath the full face helmet and body armour. Some people have said that it draws attention to the fact that women can bee good at sports and not be "butchy", that they can be pretty too. To me that is obvious, as I think it is to a lot of guys, and if it is not they just haven't been exposed to enough female riders. I think that perhaps in a small way, the more women that join the sport the less need they will have to draw attention to their so-called femininity (sexualized femininity that is.) 

I like your discussion of how women may feel alienated in sports and related activities that are generally, or have been, dominated by men. I think that there is some element of truth to that in general, even though that some women will, I am sure, feel that when engaging in sports they are completely at home... but why then the need to strip...and the need to condone it? Let's at least call it for what it is.
Anyway, like I said before, I don't think it's a question of good vs. bad. I'm just interested in what such representation does, how it does it, etc. and because I ride, and because I'm female, and because I'm opinionated and curious .


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

It bothers me too that some women feel empowered by participating in things like the calendar. I guess in one way they do then have some control over the way they are represented, but it seems they don't do anything constructive with that control. I think the problem is that the women involved just present the same kind of images that have always presented. These images convey a male oriented notion of female sexuality. There's not a lot of power or control in that.

I also think we need to look at what it is to be feminine in a sport. Is it necessarily to be pretty and not "butch"? What about having a greater capacity for endurance than men? If we do need to distinguish ourselves, isn't that a whole lot more relevant?


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

Couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## wunderhorn (May 13, 2005)

stingray4540 said:


> I meant it in a sort of tong in cheek kind of way, as you'll notice my grammer to match in the rest of the post.


Classic. :thumbsup:


----------



## Wylie (Mar 19, 2007)

bhg-au said:


> Anything? Gee, that's a big call...


Did somebody say Gee?









11 more guys like this and I'd buy that calendar for sure.

:yesnod: :yesnod: :yesnod:


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

Haha!
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't buy either version... I'd rather just look at the bike
and yes, I do like guys.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

The 2010 Canadian Women's Biathlon team did a nude calender to raise money (XC skiing and target shooting) and as I recall it sold much better after it made the national tv media. 

Anyway I'd buy one of the mudbunny calenders for a lesbian mountain biker friend but I suspect they're all sold out by now. And as to Gee's spread... when do we get to see the brother and sister equally covered up? Are the other two over 18?


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Honestly? Speaking solely on this calendar, I thinks it places objectification above athleticism. Fine if that's what you were going for, but the pin up style pics don't do it for me.

There's other versions of this out there, and even the beefcake shot above, I liked better (stylistically folks, stylistically)

Personally, I like the art side of photography's ability to tell a story, so when it uses the model, and their chosen passion, be it bikes, rock walls, etc I think it's more honest and has more impact visually and emotionally. Showing the model in their element, in an artful positioning, so as to creatively avoid the naughty bits or at a minimum, de-emphasize their sexual component, makes for far better presentation.

"I am beautiful, strong and empowered, because of this, that I do", is a far better message than "look how hot I am, (using tired cliches to belabor the point) oh, I ride a bike too....."

Things like this. http://www.stonenudes.com/gallery.html

All those women? Could rip my head off, and probably send stuff I'd never dream of putting a first foot up on. They are beautiful inside and out, and that is very cool, no cheesiness required. :thumbsup:

Also, the climbers pictured? I would feel very comfortable having my son, or wife, see them over my shoulder on the screen, there's zero objectification going on, just the beauty of the human form, tastefully presented.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

Well put. I agree with you, although I do find some of those images of the climbers still objectifying the women. This time, however, it hides beneath the label of "art". Some of them are better than others - and I don't necessarily mean the one's that are distance shots, or that "hide" certain areas of the body. 
Some others, especially the one laying down (mind you I just glanced at the page), does play with the cliche of "reclining nude" a la Giorgione, or many later artists who depicted the female in a passive role - made available to the voyeur -- something that has a very long tradition in western art. The landscape behind her too - nature, "mother earth" associated with the feminine..blah...blah...blah....
But I get what you're getting at - they are definitely more interesting and artsy, some more so than others. I do appreciate photography that ventures beyond the predictable and common when it comes to representations of the body.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

canadiana said:


> Well put.


Thanks. I'd agree, some are a bit more "enthusiastic" than others, and I'm glad enough fit the bill to allow my point to get across.....

I guess I just prefer things that look that appear like they're trying to look "beyond" the sex, but still embrace the attraction inherent within. I mean, we wouldn't be here without it

When you can't get past the use of stereotypical imagery, (as my mother in law once said about the F word) you're just not trying hard enough


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I think a distinction needs to be made between nudity in art and nudity in pornography. Greater minds than mine have tried to do that but anyhoo... My understanding is that art contains a message and any nudity is integral to that message. The nudity in pornography is gratuitous. Its intention is simply to titillate or arouse.

That said, I just can't see how "stonenudes" is art. The women would be as "beautiful" and "strong" in their climbing gear. Doing something naked that you would usually do clothed is not necessarily "empowering" and nudity is frequently used in art to denote vulnerability and exposure.

To me, the fact that the women are actually climbing is great. It does say "I'm strong, fit and skilled". The nudity just adds the caveat of "but I'm vulnerable, unthreatening and certainly not powerful enough to cause any bother."


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I think what is also important is the context in which the images are viewed: gallery setting (for example) vs. calendar/poster that anyone can purchase and put on their wall. This does not change completely how the image functions, but I think different things are at stake - different references (to society, culture, to history etc) are made just by virtue of where the image may be displayed.

I also see your point bhg-au, but at the same time there is a way to display the human (female) body nude that is not always pornographic.. at least I hope there is a context for that. I do agree with you in that it is debatable whether the climbing nudes do that, and whether they are "art" or not, but I suspect that this was the intent of the photographer. In some ways I think they are boring "art" because they really don't offer anything new - the age old association between the female body and nature/landscape waiting to be explored and colonized and all that. But perhaps they don't deserve to be elevated to that category at all, I mean there is nothing hidden or deep or interesting in terms of content -- they are likely just intended to be "pretty" or aesthetically pleasing, a category that many serious artists would abhor....


----------



## rvmdmechanic (Sep 18, 2008)

Not to intrude on the really fascinating discussion, but I am trying _really_ hard to avoid doing some work.
First, I think Duvers shot beats out the calendar in terms of athletic ability, artistic merit, and sexuality - it's a really great photograph, with interesting composition, lighting, etc. - it shows strength / activity, both in the gear, and also the muscular figure, and it retains some slight sexuality, probably in the dress, but also in the expression / posture. Is it overly sexual? Hell no, I'd be surprised to find a lot of other male support for any sexuality at all in that - but I think it's a beautiful photo, as a photo, and also an interesting subject (not to be internet - creepy). 
The calendar is... interesting... I don't find the riding photos to be that well composed, although cool, and the "pinup" photos are... well... there's better, free, stuff on the interwebz... There isn't anything special about the same image you've seen before - unless maybe it's in front of you? Not to say it might not be attractive, but, I'm certainly not going to hide it under my pillow for some QT...

Second, on the subject of objectification / appropriateness of this... it's important to remember that prevailing theories and trends not 50 years ago involved concepts like "women's identity is only formed after they marry a man" ... there has certainly been a lot of improvement in changing these kinds of views.We certainly don't live in a society that is decisively andro-centric - not that there aren't biases, however.
I agree that the calendar, and similar content, is really more about the woman, and more specifically, her sexuality, than the "product" or "activity" - it's important to recognize that, and IMO, futile to argue against that fact.
However - how do we come to determine when something is objectifying? How do we come to determine when someone is being taken advantage of? As a psychology-oriented person, I have to interject one question: What matters more - your own perceptions or the perceptions of others? Your own perceptions or societal norms? Is it objectification or exploitation when they consent? When they feel empowered? When they are fully aware of how people may see them, and they are ok with that?
Obviously, these are loaded questions - these women's opinions are the most significant factor, in my opinion.

But, are they being mislead? Do they really understand how people may see these images? Do we live in the 50s where they are doing what their husbands tell them?

In short, I think it only matters how the subjects feel, what they consent to, and how fully they understand what they are consenting to. If we shoot the photos, and I explain it fully, and in good conscious believe you understand the implications, am I in the wrong for selling this? Like all things - the bottom line as consumers, or spectators is the following: You have the power to change the channel.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I agree Canadiana, there are ways to display the female nude that are not pornographic, but I think the nudity needs to have a rationale behind it. It needs to add something to the work. I also agree that "stonenudes" is boring. As is the calendar.

There certainly have been a lot of changes over the past 50 years, rvmdmechanic, and women's roles have changed dramatically. However, while our society is not decisively anything, the andro-centric bias is strong. Just look at the way women are portrayed in popular culture or the fact that we get paid less for doing the same job as a man or that there are hardly any of us represented on the boards of corporations or at how few of us there are in government.

Additionally, no offence, but it's easy to ask " yes, but how do we determine x" or "how do we determine when someone is y". There's an extent to which these questions are trivial and can be asked under any circumstance. The point is that most of us recognise when someone is being treated as an object or taken advantage of. Perhaps we do it ostensively. 

Additionally secondly, perceptions are not that uncomplicated. On one hand I could say that my perceptions are the only things that matter as they are the only things I have direct access to. On the other hand, societal norms could be said to play a large role in 
determining perceptions. I'm inclined to favour the first hand.

Finally, people consent to a whole range of things for a whole range of reasons. Not all of those reasons are good ones. None of us live in a vacuum. The choices we make - including what we're prepared to buy and sell - impact the people/consumers/spectators around us and society at large.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

bhg-au said:


> To me, the fact that the women are actually climbing is great. It does say "I'm strong, fit and skilled". The nudity just adds the caveat of "but I'm vulnerable, unthreatening and certainly not powerful enough to cause any bother."


Interesting, I see the nudity as more of an expression of purism.

To hang by your fingers, 30, or 300 feet off the ground, and have the strength of mind to calmly take one hand off to clip the next 'biner, there is no vulnerability for you that you didn't bring on yourself through an act of supreme self confidence. I see no depiction of openness to harm as related to gender. I have no idea if you climb or not, I do it a bit, I'm not great by any means. Every woman I've met who climbs, is in their own way, representative of what I would call a powerful woman.

Climbing is a very pure experience, cleansing in ways that can be similar to cleaning a really gnarly section you never in a million years thought you could. Since you're attached to the rock for your life, you start to feel one with it. Your trust in your partner is absolute, they screw up, you could die, and vice versa. There is nobody I know who climbs that strikes me as helpless, without power or confidence.

Here's a few for you, one, man, or woman? Vulnerable, or I'm gonna crush you when I get off this wall.....

And a video, no one I know, but I do know a number of climbers who'll often do full moon (no pun intened) skinnyclimbing.... No full frontal nudity, sorry ladies.






Those women are doing that cause they are super confident, not the other way around. They are all climbers, not models that they got to hold a pose on a wall. Look at the faces of any that show one, it's game on........:thumbsup:


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

Been there, done that. My $.02, as a guy who last year (2008) gave his buddies the 2009 Cycle Passion calendar (google it yourself), I do agree that it objectifies women and took a pass on a reorder the 2010 calendar--they left out bikes or anything cycling related in most of 2010's calendar. Hard to be called "Cycle Passion". Sure the models are cyclists but still. Myself, I would prefer to see women dress normally in exotic landscape photos. For example, take any female rider, in any condition, and put her in Greg's calendar on BikeAbout.net. Now THAT would be first class! Even better if the proceeds went to something link Susan G. Komen.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

Do you mean purism as in the nudity denotes purity or do you mean purism a la Le Corbusier?

I'm not debating the idea that these pictures show a whole range of positive things about the women involved. As I said, they appear "strong, fit and skilled". I just think the nudity diminishes this. Canadiana's discussion of the image of the women lying down is a case in point.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> there are ways to display the female nude that are not pornographic, but I think the nudity needs to have a rationale behind it. It needs to add something to the work.


So, I read this and some of the other comments as that you don't agree with nudity as an art form? Does there have to be a rationale behind Venus de Milo, The Birth of Venus by Botticalli, David by Michaelangelo; The Alliance of Earth and Water by Rubens... etc. ? Art for art's sake isn't rationale enough? Certainly Stone Nudes, while perhaps not museum material, is an attempt at art, to take the nude beyond pinup material ismho...


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I have not said that I "don't agree with nudity as an art form." In fact, the post containing the quote you cite indicates the opposite. I agree that the examples you give are wonderful pieces of art. However, I stand by the idea that there is a reason for the nudity and that it adds something to the work. 

My understanding of the Venus de Milo is that she is thought to be a representation of Aphrodite. As the goddess of love, desire, fertility and beauty, I think there is a fairly obvious rationale for her nudity. A similar point can be made regarding the Birth of Venus. Also, she is being born. Again, I think there is a good reason for her nudity.

I think, too, that in sculpting the statue of David, Michelangelo was interested in expressing particular ratios in the representation of the human form. This would have been difficult to show if he weren't nude.

I'm sorry but I'm unfamiliar with your fourth reference. 

If by "art for art's" sake you mean that art has an intrinsic worth, I'm inclined to agree. However, I'm discussing how we get to the point of considering something to be art. Furthermore, making an attempt at creating art, doesn't necessarily mean that you succeed.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

formica said:


> Certainly Stone Nudes, while perhaps not museum material, is an attempt at art, to take the nude beyond pinup material ismho...


Pretty much my point. The original discussion was based around calendars, and the use of womens images therein.

I'd not put the bulk of the Stone nudes in the category of art, then again, a lot of art, I wouldn't characterize as such either

I think a few, from an art perspective, use light well, and allow the flow of human form to be picked up and mimicked in their surroundings, elevating it above well done nudie pics. Whatever, works for me, and I'd still rather have it on my wall, than a bunch of vamped pin up style calendar pages.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I have things to add - and will soon, but for now I just want to say that I'm really impressed with the development of this discussion. When I started this thread I wasn't holding my breath for anything interesting to come out of it - although I really hoped that it would - plus it was and remains to be a really good way to procrastinate from my totally unrelated work, which currently needs my attention...

I really like the fact that there is a range of really engaged views (from guys and gals) presented here on a subject that tends to get swept under the table (at least that's been my experience in the world of the every day)...:thumbsup:


----------



## rvmdmechanic (Sep 18, 2008)

bhg-au said:


> However, while our society is not decisively anything, the andro-centric bias is strong. Just look at the way women are portrayed in popular culture or the fact that we get paid less for doing the same job as a man or that there are hardly any of us represented on the boards of corporations or at how few of us there are in government.
> 
> ...there's an extent to which these questions are trivial and can be asked under any circumstance. The point is that most of us recognise when someone is being treated as an object or taken advantage of. Perhaps we do it ostensively.
> 
> ...


Not to be that guy that picks apart posts, or that guy that says "well, I've taken women's studies / women's psychology classes, so I know everything..." but... I think either I really mis-spoke or you misread a large portion of my argument.
No doubt our society is andro-centric. Our society is also white-centric, upper-class controlled, falsely democratic, etc. etc. - the point of feminism is not that men are evil (although it may have been 50 years ago), the point of feminism is that everyone deserves equality, and that minorities everywhere need to be given equal treatment. And this is not to belittle the plight of women as a disadvantaged group, but just to say, yes - we know - all minorities get shafted, and there are many marginalized groups; we don't need to turn this into that kind of argument.

I don't think questions of perception are trivial at all, and I don't think my statements, nor any theories regarding perception exclude the role of society - society is obviously essential to the formation of our values and affects our self-concept, and thus perceptions of our self, the world, so on - I certainly did not mean to exclude that in my suggestions.

I also don't think that people can recognize when others are being taken advantage of all that well - the same way people are horrible at telling when others are lying... if, as I have suggested, being taken advantage of relies largely in part on a person's perceptions, how can you know that? And further, if it also depends in part on our outside interpretations of how that person's actions / body are being used, and whether or not those usages are respectful - how can we objectively judge that? Perhaps you judge, as many of the comments here have, with a statement about how you would feel in their shoes... that visualization certainly helps you form an opinion, but that's not objective at all! There are so many factors involved in "being taken advantage of" that you can't possibly know of, like their perceptions, and how informed they are about the potential consequences. To me, those 2 things are central to the issue. If the women understand that they are being sexualized, which hopefully they do before they dress up as pinpus, and they consent anyways... is that wrong? They aren't being paid for it, there are no guns being held to their heads, this isn't pornography or rape or anything like that... it's a calendar.

Would you call nude models in drawing classes being exploited? The girls in Mendon's photos? Is this Calendar any different? And is it exploitation perhaps because the club is using sex to sell calendars? Well, aren't these women members of the club? Don't they want that... And didn't they have alternative means of fundraising?

I don't expect that you'll agree with me, but I think you misread some of what I was trying to ask / suggest: These women are the only ones who can tell us whether or not they have been taken advantage of, in my opinion. It is easy to say that pornography is degrading and disgusting - I agree, it does nothing for me because of this - but there are women out there who I believe really don't mind and really do understand their industry - and it is an industry. And if you don't agree - then what is your criteria for being taken advantage of? Do the "victims'" opinions count to you?

Not to fall into the classic slippery slope but at what point do we border on approaching the "anytime men enjoy looking at a woman, she's being exploited" attitude? Why does it have to be exploiting to embrace human sexuality? After all, our one and only purpose in life is to procreate... And maybe to huck some sweet air :thumbsup:


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

No offence, rmvdmechanic, but I don't think you misspoke or I misread anything. "We certainly don't live in a society that is decisively andro-centric - not that there aren't biases, however" is a fairly clear statement. I cited the ways in which women are not given equal treatment in order to underscore just how strong these biases are. I am certainly not suggesting that "all men are evil" (some of my best people are men) nor am I trying to turn this into "that kind of argument".

I stand by my statement that some of your questions are trivial. As I said they can be asked under any circumstance. I could just as easily ask, for example, how do we determine that "society is white-centric" or how do we determine when a minority is being "shafted". In this way, these kinds of questions become almost banal. 

I'm also not suggesting that your comments exclude the role of society in perception. You asked the question, What matters more - ... Your own perceptions or societal norms?" I simply gave you my thoughts on perception.

I also stand by my statement that people can tell when others are being taken advantage of. On a practical note, I think all of us would be able to see that a 12 year old girl, living on the streets of Bangkok and prostituting herself in exchange for food is not doing it freely. As I said, perhaps we can know that ostensively. On a more philosophical note, I certainly don't claim to have access to other people's perceptions, thoughts or feelings. As I said, I think the only things we have direct access to are our own perceptions. Furthermore, I base my opinions on my perceptions, thoughts and feelings. I certainly wouldn't try to mount an argument around guessing at other people's mental states or guessing at how I would feel in their shoes. And, I don't think objectivity is possible... ever.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that I haven't raised the notion of exploitation with respect to nudity. The little girl in Bangkok is being exploited, not grown women choosing to do what they do. Neither, have I suggested that pornography is "degrading and disgusting". All I have said is that the nudity it contains is gratuitous. Nor have I suggested that it is "exploiting to enjoy human sexuality". 

Leaving your comment about our one and only purpose in life being to procreate aside (I don't want children - but let's not go there), I'm pretty sure that the concerns that I've expressed have simply been with respect to the way the images we've been discussing reflect and influence society's attitude to women.


----------



## jewels (Mar 17, 2004)

If I were to guess, I'd say having FUN, creating awareness of the club and raising money was their main aim. And obviously they've met that goal. It's interesting to see it manifest into this discussion. I agree w/ formica that it is a strange juxtaposition of images though. From a purely photographic pov, I would love to see the girls in two separate photos, one big spread of them ripping the trail and the other 'portrait' shot including a quick bio of them, maybe in the back of the calendar. (Up to them if they want it sexy or not. A portrait should show your true self/personality, if it's sexy...so be it!) I think that photoshopping both ripper/sexy chick shot was a unique idea, it didn't quite mesh with me.

Personally I'm inspired by many characteristic of women (athleticism, smarts, generousity/kindness, having a killer bod, overcoming struggles, being a mom, or just a regular gal making strides in the sport...etc etc) And I'm certain each of these gals have many of these inspiring qualities and a quick bio and portrait shot would be very cool to see. Anhow, I don't really have any good input re: the OP questions, but I have seen the photos on the calendar and thought...hey that was pretty cool and if I were to do one, what would I do differently if I was behind the lens?


----------



## stingray4540 (Jun 25, 2009)

bhg-au said:


> Just look at the way women are portrayed in popular culture or the fact that we get paid less for doing the same job as a man or that there are hardly any of us represented on the boards of corporations or at how few of us there are in government.


How women are portrayed in popular culture? Really?! Have you watched a sitcom in the last 10 years?

Men are always portrayed as clueless, unable to take care of there responsibilities, unable to raise kids, always wrong, poor decision makers, etc. While the wife (or woman) is always right, does all the work, makes all the decisions, is always fixing the husband's mistakes, can't leave the kids with the husband without some calamity, etc.

Oh, and although my wife and I don't have the same job, it is generally assumed that I have the better job, until they find out we make the same amount of money... Oh, and my boss and my bosses boss are both women. The whole "minority" excuse really gets under my skin.


----------



## stingray4540 (Jun 25, 2009)

*MendonCycleSmith: *Thanks for the link, those photos are amazing! My wife even thought so, and she isn't very tolerant of naked women other than herself.


----------



## connie (Mar 16, 2004)

stingray4540 said:


> How women are portrayed in popular culture? Really?! Have you watched a sitcom in the last 10 years?
> 
> Men are always portrayed as clueless, unable to take care of there responsibilities, unable to raise kids, always wrong, poor decision makers, etc. While the wife (or woman) is always right, does all the work, makes all the decisions, is always fixing the husband's mistakes, can't leave the kids with the husband without some calamity, etc.
> 
> Oh, and although my wife and I don't have the same job, it is generally assumed that I have the better job, until they find out we make the same amount of money... Oh, and my boss and my bosses boss are both women. The whole "minority" excuse really gets under my skin.


I hear you. I just don't see any of these stereotypes having that much effect on my real life. I've done well in male dominated jobs. My husband is the clean freak in the relationship. And we've alternated back and forth as to who makes more money. And I see plenty of male athletes who pose for calendars or other gratuitously sexy photos but somehow no one worries about it.

I think the bottom line is that you have to learn to ignore all of the senseless stereotypes and pressure (usually in both directions) and figure out what YOU want to do. I mean - you could spend your life hiding in baggy clothes trying to protect yourself from being exploited for your sexuality - but if you're hiding who you want to be out of fear, that isn't any better (IMHO). Living your life involves taking risks. Everyone isn't going to appreciate the things you do, no matter how hard you try, so the important thing is how YOU feel about what you are doing. The calendar is voluntary, I'm assuming the girls in it had creative input and control over what got published and therefore - I hope they had fun and more power to them.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I think talking about intention is a waste of time - to put it very bluntly. A lot of the time intentions don't come through. It's hard to make excuses for something based on what its original intention was, in many cases we will never know and to judge an image or work of art based on intention can be useless. The calendar operates within a specific and complex visual context and culture: sex sells. The women are objectified/depersonalized. Nothing about the images works to suggest that there is more to the woman besides her inherent sexuality, and that oh, yeah, she rides bikes - but you can't really see her under all that amour so it's best to emphasize her femininity by having her water flowers in lingerie. In a way it's actually kind of ridiculous in a funny way.
The current trend is to believe that as long as women take their own clothes off, and as long as its on their own terms, and that as long as they had FUN doing it, then it can' be objectification, and we should support our "sisters" - someone said that at one point.
This bothers me because it buys into the above and does nothing in suggesting that there is more to femininity than the type that is most likely to appeal to most men.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I hear you both, but I think it's important to remember, since we're talking about it, that not everyone's experience in this is the same. That's great that you've never experienced sexism and all that. 
Despite how some media might be playing with stereotypes, I still think that it still think that advertising uses predominantly sexualized female imagery to advertise their products to guys - especially the sports world. Some bike magazines are better than other when it comes to this, but it's still very much there and it's annoying - at least to me because I love mt. biking and it's frustrating to be reminded what role I'm essentially to occupy within it, so to speak.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

true..


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I start getting really annoyed when woman A chooses to do something that woman B doesn't agree with, and B starts in the with objectification talk, even if A is totally comfortable and confident with her choice. It doesn't have to be posing for a calendar. It can be something as simple as personal grooming habits, what kind of shoes, skirts or even underwear a woman chooses, her sexual habits, etc. I've heard women hassle other women for the above and lots more for years. If woman A is not feeling objectified, or that is not an issue for her, at what point does it stop being woman B's business?

This is where I got off the whole objectification band wagon years ago. There's a lot of time and energy spent by women criticizing other women for choosing different, confidently, that could be put to much more productive use.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

Yes. Have you watched "Two and a Half Men", "The Bold and The Beautiful", the "Nutrigrain" ad, the latest "Virgin Blue" ad...etc?

I've not made any comment regarding the portrayal of men in the media. I agree with you, often men are portrayed as complete morons and I find it as offensive as you seem to. However, that doesn't change the way women are portrayed. It's not a competition.

I've also not made any excuses, just statements of fact.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I think you've missed the point. The complaint about the calendar is not that it's objectifying - it obviously is, and successfully b/c it sells. Some of us still care how women are represented in the sports world because we participate in it. I feel implicated in this calendar because I am a female bt. biker and I hate how media represents femininity, and also that we are essentially told what it means to be feminine. Mostly this concerns me in relation to young girls who are pressured to look a certain way in order to be feminine and to "fit in".
I have no problem with women wanting to look sl_tty (for some reason it won't let me type the word!!), sexual, the opposite - they can do whatever. The issue is what this calendar purports to achieve and how it's trying to do it.

this calendar was made public, much to the joy of some, and chagrin of others - so, what is wrong with talking about it?

I also think that if we are going to bring media into the discussion, we need to consider all of it - sure, sitcoms make fun of men - they seem to reverse the traditional roles. Advertising is the worst when it comes to representing women in a certain way - ok, the dove commercial does something different, but most advertising that uses women does objectify them. I guess it's up to the individual to decide where they stand on that, and perhaps yes, there are "bigger problems" in the world, but things would have never changed for women over the centuries if people always rolled over on everything, which seems to be the predominant attitude among women these days. These issues are still relevant today.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Pretty much my point. The original discussion was based around calendars, and the use of womens images therein.
> 
> I'd not put the bulk of the Stone nudes in the category of art, then again, a lot of art, I wouldn't characterize as such either
> 
> I think a few, from an art perspective, use light well, and allow the flow of human form to be picked up and mimicked in their surroundings, elevating it above well done nudie pics. Whatever, works for me, and I'd still rather have it on my wall, than a bunch of vamped pin up style calendar pages.


But don't you think there is more to art then just pleasing the eye? What about art that digs a bit deeper and plays with interesting or complex concepts or makes interesting commentary?

I do agree that the stonenudes are better than the biking pics, they are more artsy, and cheesy in an entirely different way. I also get how if I was a climber I may appreciate them differently - the idea of being at one with the rock etc. They do showcase the human body at its best, but this is somehow cheapened for me when they take the form of a calender.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I think too, that this discussion doesn't need to focus on the women involved in posing for the calendars. I don't know them and I don't know what drives them. They may well be "comfortable and confident" but they may also be desperately unconfident. I think this is about the images, not the individuals. 

I agree with you Formica, that women can treat each other appallingly badly. However, I think that when this treatment focuses on appearance, it is, due, at least in part, to being subjected to, sorry yes, objectified images. We are constantly bombarded with images of impossibly flawless beauty. It's canny marketing. If you can make women feel bad about themselves - fat/ugly/pimply - then they're a whole lot more likely to buy your weight-loss/beauty/skin-care product. Unfortunately, it seems that when people feel bad about their own appearance, they're more inclined to make harsh judgements about how others present themselves.

If we want women to stop being so cruelly judgemental of each other's appearance, then I really think that we need to address the impact these images have on all of us.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*This is an interesting discussion*

that misses the essential principle that attraction is as hardwired as aggression and the emergence of aggression in new ways by women is poorly understood by both genders. Naked is naked, kids, and it straddles aggression to sexuality with some mistaken attempt to suggest only sensuality and vigor. Like I am really going to distill some other sense from the naked female form? Pursuant to what? Esoterica? Intellectualism?

Not likely.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

We're hardwired for a lot of things. That doesn't necessarily mean they are given full expression. We're not just our limbic systems. Most of us have a frontal lobe as well.


----------



## stingray4540 (Jun 25, 2009)

formica said:


> I start getting really annoyed when woman A chooses to do something that woman B doesn't agree with, and B starts in the with objectification talk, even if A is totally comfortable and confident with her choice. It doesn't have to be posing for a calendar. It can be something as simple as personal grooming habits, what kind of shoes, skirts or even underwear a woman chooses, her sexual habits, etc. I've heard women hassle other women for the above and lots more for years. If woman A is not feeling objectified, or that is not an issue for her, at what point does it stop being woman B's business?
> 
> This is where I got off the whole objectification band wagon years ago. There's a lot of time and energy spent by women criticizing other women for choosing different, confidently, that could be put to much more productive use.


I couldn't agree more. In fact I feel that the ones that cry "racism" or "sexism" are in fact the ones that are racist/sexist.

It's a free country, people can do what they want, as long is it isn't hurting someone else, without other people giving them crap. And the only reason someone gets all up in arms about the actions of someone else is because they themselves, either hate that person, is jealous, etc.

You are who you want to be, your actions and the choices you make define who you are. Other peoples actions do NOT define who you are or hinder who you want to be, that is just an excuse for you to use to explain why you haven't achieved what you want to because of a lack of effort from yourself.

Sorry, couldn't help it...


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

stingray4540 said:


> I couldn't agree more. In fact I feel that the ones that cry "racism" or "sexism" are in fact the ones that are racist/sexist.
> 
> It's a free country, people can do what they want, as long is it isn't hurting someone else, without other people giving them crap. And the only reason someone gets all up in arms about the actions of someone else is because they themselves, either hate that person, is jealous, etc.
> 
> ...


You are right, in some ways, but you are missing the point of what some people were trying to say - perhaps you hadn't read some posts - like the one that has already posted the same very much tongue-in-cheek poster that you find so amusing.

From my understanding, NO ONE is criticizing anyone in particular - the discussion was centered on the IMAGES and how they may be read and discussed in an INTELLIGENT manner.

I also think that some of your statements are rather ignorant:
"I couldn't agree more. In fact I feel that the ones that cry "racism" or "sexism" are in fact the ones that are racist/sexist.
It's a free country, people can do what they want, as long is it isn't hurting someone else, without other people giving them crap. And the only reason someone gets all up in arms about the actions of someone else is because they themselves, either hate that person, is jealous, etc."

Do you live in a bubble? Perhaps you've never experienced racism or sexism (personally I've only experienced the latter, and because I am lucky to live where I live and because I surround myself with people I respect I rarely have to deal with it). I am quite certain that "hate" or "jealousy" have no part in this discussion.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

bhg-au said:


> I think too, that this discussion doesn't need to focus on the women involved in posing for the calendars. I don't know them and I don't know what drives them. They may well be "comfortable and confident" but they may also be desperately unconfident. I think this is about the images, not the individuals.
> 
> I agree with you Formica, that women can treat each other appallingly badly. However, I think that when this treatment focuses on appearance, it is, due, at least in part, to being subjected to, sorry yes, objectified images. We are constantly bombarded with images of impossibly flawless beauty. It's canny marketing. If you can make women feel bad about themselves - fat/ugly/pimply - then they're a whole lot more likely to buy your weight-loss/beauty/skin-care product. Unfortunately, it seems that when people feel bad about their own appearance, they're more inclined to make harsh judgements about how others present themselves.
> 
> If we want women to stop being so cruelly judgemental of each other's appearance, then I really think that we need to address the impact these images have on all of us.


:thumbsup:


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I'm not sure of the basis of these claims, stingray. Nelson Mandela cried racism, but I don't think many of us would call him a racist. Further, I don't see how a woman who has been groped by her boss and calls him a "sexist prick" is herself sexist.

I do agree, however, that it is a "free country and people can do whatever they want, as long as it isn't hurting someone else". I guess it just depends on what you consider constitutes "hurting someone else". I think the 29% of women in Australia who experience sexual harassment in the workplace are being "hurt". As are the 80% of 4th grade girls who have been on a fad diet. The images that we're discussing reinforce and contribute to the attitudes that give rise to these hurts.

I also agree that our choices and actions contribute to who we are. However these choices and actions have a context. The woman who has been groped by her boss can make the choice to leave her job and take action in getting another. I don't, however, think it's fair to say that he hasn't impacted her ability to reach her goals.

Finally, arguments based on slurs and personal attacks just give the impression of an inability to mount an argument of substance.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

stingray4540 said:


> I couldn't agree more. In fact I feel that the ones that cry "racism" or "sexism" are in fact the ones that are racist/sexist.
> 
> It's a free country, people can do what they want, as long is it isn't hurting someone else, without other people giving them crap. And the only reason someone gets all up in arms about the actions of someone else is because they themselves, either hate that person, is jealous, etc.
> 
> ...


This has been really educational...now that I know that sexism is only faced by complaining, jealous, woman-hating, ugly b_tches who are too busy making excuses, and too lazy to achieve, I will live a much happier life.


----------



## mtb_mud_honey (May 31, 2005)

I saw this thread a while ago but never got a chance to reply. While I think I've read (and remembered) all of the posts, I apologize if I'm re-hashing issues that have already been brought up.

I personally don't find the calendar, nor even the name of the women's riding club appealling. And yes, this is enough to keep me form becoming a member (I do live in Vancouver). However, I have no need nor desire to force my opinion on the club members either. As was said earlier, "it is what it is" and it works for them 

As far as calendars go, this is more what I'd like to see the equivalent of for MTB: http://www.radboob.com/ While its great that the women's mtb club is able to raise money for their club and members, I'd rather support a charity (or at least, contribute to my own beer fund rather than the club's).

Cheers,
pd


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

mtb_mud_honey said:


> I saw this thread a while ago but never got a chance to reply. While I think I've read (and remembered) all of the posts, I apologize if I'm re-hashing issues that have already been brought up.
> 
> I personally don't find the calendar, nor even the name of the women's riding club appealling. And yes, this is enough to keep me form becoming a member (I do live in Vancouver). However, I have no need nor desire to force my opinion on the club members either. As was said earlier, "it is what it is" and it works for them
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 
I agree that it would be wrong to force opinions on the club members, and I hope that none of what I said came across that way. But I think that talking about it in this type of setting is ok because really all we're doing is talking, there's no real forcing the issue, so to speak, on anyone. At the most all it does is make people aware of other people's stance (and make for an interesting conversation). 

On an unrelated note (to your post), and more generally, I want to add to this thread that it's good to at least consider these issues, even if a person thinks he or she has no stake in it. If there is a significant reaction to some issue, whatever it may be, then I think there is reason enough to consider it beyond just the superficial (and blatantly dismissing or even making fun of people's view--like some people have in this threat--is ignorant)


----------



## mtb_mud_honey (May 31, 2005)

canadiana said:


> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> I agree that it would be wrong to force opinions on the club members, and I hope that none of what I said came across that way.


No, nothing you said came across that way, I guess I was just worried that I would!


----------



## rvmdmechanic (Sep 18, 2008)

bhg-au said:


> I'm not sure of the basis of these claims, stingray. Nelson Mandela cried racism, but I don't think many of us would call him a racist. Further, I don't see how a woman who has been groped by her boss and calls him a "sexist prick" is herself sexist.
> 
> I do agree, however, that it is a "free country and people can do whatever they want, as long as it isn't hurting someone else". I guess it just depends on what you consider constitutes "hurting someone else". I think the 29% of women in Australia who experience sexual harassment in the workplace are being "hurt". As are the 80% of 4th grade girls who have been on a fad diet. The images that we're discussing reinforce and contribute to the attitudes that give rise to these hurts.
> 
> ...


Earlier you talked about advertising, beauty products, etc. - referencing the obvious fact again, of perceptions - if you tell a room full of girls that women traditionally score lower on a test they are about to take, they will score lower than a comparable group that was not told that. If you present to women an image and they believe (perceive) it is the ideal, they will judge themselves accordingly (am i a woman? do i look like that?) and act... this isn't a revelation or shocking fact - it's an assertion of a basic principle of human survival: think for yourself.
If a woman, or a man, can't think for themselves enough to come up with their own conceptions of ideal, their own goals for themselves, etc. - pity on them, for a whole other host of reasons than the fact that they buy more beauty products... this conception that the media is to blame for a woman's low self-esteem is crap. Same with the idea that "80% of girls...dieting..." - crap. Where were the parents? Did they raise their children to think for themselves? Did they watch their children's eating? Did they explain the value of exercise, a healthy diet, etc. - or did they just let them watch TV all day?

Is it our responsibility as a society to explain to people that the point of TV is to make money? Is it our responsibility to explain that the point of beauty products is to make money? Is it our responsibility to explain the notion that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Really?

Indeed, is it anyone's responsibility to think of this calendar in terms of "how does this make other women feel"? No... that's crap. This calendar doesn't give anyone preconceptions of how all women mountain bikers are in any way that's going to make or break your own experience as a woman. People stereotype, and over-simplify - we're inherently lazy, and those things are easy to do. With or without this calendar, people will classify everyone else to make it easier on them. Women will always be perceived sexually by men - as someone else noted as well, that's what it's all about - we're all evaluating eachother in that way, consciously or unconsciously.

I value equality, fairness, consideration, etc. - I think everyone does. No one wants women to be objectified, or to feel forced into some image they don't want - nor do I find models on TV to be sexually attractive to nearly the degree of someone more... healthy? - but this world is a business. People want to sell products, make a living, get famous, etc. - and that's just how they go about it. Is it worth trying to change that? And is this calendar really evil? It's not a representation of MTB... it's a small fundraiser, not some commercially produced TV spot.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I have not claimed that the idea that advertising effects the way we feel is a "revelation or shocking fact". I simply referred to it as part of a thought about the way in which the images used in advertising impact the way women behave towards each other.

I disagree that "think for yourself"is "a basic principle of human survival". Human's are social animals. We have always lived in groups and thinking as a group has been an integral part of our evolutionary "success". Obviously, we're not only driven by our biological history, however, this history leaves us susceptible to the opinions of our group. Your own opening statements support this fact.

I have not claimed that the media alone "is to blame for a woman's low self esteem". My 
statement was deliberately qualified: "...it is due, at least in part...". Of course, how we feel about ourselves is influenced by a wide range of factors. My point is that the images in the media contribute to women feeling bad about themselves. For example, in research reported by the University of Colorado, 7 out of 10 women reported feeling more depressed and more angry after viewing images of models than prior to viewing the images.

These images influence girls as much as they do women. I agree that parents play a major role in determining how girls feel about themselves, but given the role that the media plays in children's lives, it is naive to dismiss its impact. For example, a 2009 Nielsen poll revealed that children aged 2-5 watch 32 hours of television each week. Further research reports that children aged 8-11 watch 28 hours per week and that in 51% of households the television is on "most of the time". Even with the best of intentions, it has to be incredibly difficult for parents to completely compensate for the images little girls are subjected to.

Additionally, in Australia, 68% of men, 55% of women and 25% of children are obese or overweight. My understanding is that these statistics are even higher in the U.S. Consequently, I fail to see how the majority of parents are equipped to "explain the value of exercise, a healthy diet etc..." to their children.

I think that we all need to be able to analyse the media and marketing. We need to understand its drivers, its devices and its influence. I certainly think that it is our responsibility to give our children these skills. I also don't see the harm in raising these issues with adults. How else can any of us make informed choices around such a substantial part of our lives?

As I've said before, what we're prepare to buy and sell impacts the people around us. The kind of images displayed in the calendar reinforce and reflect attitudes that can give rise to a whole range of difficulties for women. Sexual harassment and poor self esteem are just two examples. In this way these sexualised, objectified images, while not making or breaking, can strongly effect the experience of being a woman.

I agree that we live in a consumerist society where people and products can be treated as commodities. I'm not so innocent as to think that will change any time soon. I do, however, think that being aware of the way the kind of images we've been discussing influence and mirror our attitudes is crucial. We can't necessarily change society but we can change the way it impacts our children and ourselves.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

bhg-au said:


> I have not claimed that the idea that advertising effects the way we feel is a "revelation or shocking fact". I simply referred to it as part of a thought about the way in which the images used in advertising impact the way women behave towards each other.
> 
> I disagree that "think for yourself"is "a basic principle of human survival". Human's are social animals. We have always lived in groups and thinking as a group has been an integral part of our evolutionary "success". Obviously, we're not only driven by our biological history, however, this history leaves us susceptible to the opinions of our group. Your own opening statements support this fact.
> 
> ...


Well, I can say that that covers it pretty d_mn well!! I couldn't agree more.

To say that we are not impacted by media and culture around us is inaccurate, as the stats provided by bhg-au indicate (and there have been many studies done on this subject, just do some research for yourself, rvmdmechanic, but stick to peer reviewed journals). I think that much of what we are is a result of our environment, and as visual creatures I think we are all very much impacted by visual imagery--the calendar among them. No one here is attempting to "change the world" and I am sure that most of us are not activist, but I think talking about these issues openly is good because at the very least it helps us think about it.


----------



## midgetmafiosa (Oct 8, 2009)

just wanted to say for the record that this women's lounge is much more productive and interesting than the one on my snowboard forum. we need more girls like you over there. we are a lonely bunch battling a hoard of douchery. *sigh*

women in sexy mtb calenders? the feminist in me says we've reached a time where women are empowered to do what they want with their bodies and their image. if it's their choice, i support that, even if it's not for me. the consumer in me says "meh, i'd rather see them riding."


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

midgetmafiosa said:


> just wanted to say for the record that this women's lounge is much more productive and interesting than the one on my snowboard forum. we need more girls like you over there. we are a lonely bunch battling a hoard of douchery. *sigh*"


haha!


----------



## rvmdmechanic (Sep 18, 2008)

> To say that we are not impacted by media and culture around us is inaccurate, as the stats provided by bhg-au indicate (and there have been many studies done on this subject, just do some research for yourself, rvmdmechanic, but stick to peer reviewed journals). I think that much of what we are is a result of our environment, and as visual creatures I think we are all very much impacted by visual imagery--the calendar among them. No one here is attempting to "change the world" and I am sure that most of us are not activist, but I think talking about these issues openly is good because at the very least it helps us think about it.


Agreed. I hope I didn't come off as disagreeing that media and culture is influential in human thought / lives. Again, my point is that perceptions are more important - and that while they are influenced by everything, including media, it is something that a self-aware person can have a lot of control over.

Mindless drones of course, are not so empowered. Again, see my statement about parents needing to do their job empowering their children, taking them away from the TV and making them less mindless. Also the responsibility of women to stop buying cosmo and being mindless...



> As I've said before, what we're prepare to buy and sell impacts the people around us. The kind of images displayed in the calendar reinforce and reflect attitudes that can give rise to a whole range of difficulties for women. Sexual harassment and poor self esteem are just two examples. In this way these sexualised, objectified images, while not making or breaking, can strongly effect the experience of being a woman.


Back on topic of the calendar, and moving away from my apparently minority belief in the power of one to think for oneself, and not buy into calendars or media... this is silliness. Someone has already provided well researched evidence to show that the very same calendar is available in a Man-flavorway, I think this just isn't relevant. It's not sexist, it's not impacting the experience of being a woman, it doesn't promote sexual harassment, and since the majority of you ladies won't be buying it... shouldn't affect your self-esteem.

The calendar is a way to make money. The same sexualized images of women can identically be found of men. Therefore, I propose we move past identifying that as sexism. Perhaps we can attempt to form a "post-gender" society (tongue in cheek sarcasm there) and accept that maybe, what we're discussing is "objectification" or "sexualization" - we can consider that the women or men are no longer being admired for their skills but more for their bodies. We may also consider that it is not just their great muscles or clearly fit shapes, but perhaps the sexuality of these bodies. Then, maybe we can agree - this isn't sexism. This is sexualization or objectification, but it is not an attack on femininity, again, because the same calendar comes in a man flavor - this may sound naive, but I have to say that my sincere understanding of sexism requires that there be some kind of inequality on the basis of gender: I don't think this is it. I think the same kind of treatment is obviously being given, and the same product being bought, regardless of gender.

I whole-heartedly support your desires not to support objectification or sexualization of our great sport and its (great) athletes. I also support a desire to avoid sexism, imparting sexist attitudes upon anyone, or worsening anyone's experience of any of the great things life has to offer. This calendar, unfortunately, is not guilty of the latter things - is it objectifying? Perhaps. Is it sexualized? Definitely. Are these the greatest evils facing our society? Probably not... Again, sexuality is part of human nature. As coked out as Freud was, and as overly-sexual as his theories are - there is a significant amount of well documented "fact" in them, it's hard as a human being to deny you enjoy sex. It's also hard to deny that you do evaluate others as potential mates, as part of these unconscious desires. Is it criminal to do that? Is it criminal for a woman to know that and display her beauty? After all - are we lusting after her because we are dirty dogs or because she is attractive? (Perhaps it is both - but let's consider peacocks. Isn't the point of being beautiful to attract a mate?)

Does being sexually stimulated by a person's image exclude us from being able to respect them? Are people really so simple that they categorize ALL women into that group that wears thongs, bends over and smiles? I hope for your own sake you don't think so, that's a really depressing world-view.

I suppose what I'm getting at is this... I don't think the calendar represents sexism. I also don't think pornography is sexist. I think they may both arguably be degrading - but I do not find that either one promotes viewing *only* women as sexual objects, or as lesser beings. I think rather, they promote viewing all humans as sexual objects. And, I would say: we are. Does that mean that we do not have personalities, souls, etc. - no, and those things *deserve respect* - but, I think you have to spend time getting to know someone to demonstrate that.

Does anyone really find that this calendar threatens their biking experience, or does the rush of wind, the pedal stroke, the clack clack clack of your chain, and the refreshing feeling of being outside kind of come to overwhelm that? Indeed, when you're on the bike - do you consider your own gender? Is this calendar really sexist and evil? Is it going to teach our children bad things? Or are there probably greater evils out there - starting with the failure of people to think - instead of mindlessly absorbing.

I would be really interested to hear of someone that feels they've experienced sexism as a result of calendars like this - that would really change my thinking. But I find it hard to believe that this is the thing that tipped it over and made a man mistreat you.

Also - I hope I'm not typing too much or carrying on too long for anyone - It's cold, snowy, etc. and I am BORED! This is quite interesting.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I'm really glad to see that we agree on something. However...

I have not referred to anything, including the calendar, as "sexist". It is not a term I use. It's too nebulous. You say "it's not sexist, it's not impacting the experience of being a woman, it doesn't promote sexual harassment..." but you don't substantiate these claims. We've already been over these issues. I've expressed my thoughts and provided support to them with statistics from reputable sources and/or counterexamples. I'm not sure where else to go.

As to your reference to sexualised images of men, as I've already said, this does not change the way women are portrayed and the effects these images can have. Further, male sexuality and female sexuality are represented in very different ways in our society. "****" has its aetiology in a word meaning "to conquer and enter" and this is a reflection of the power imbalance that exists between sexes. (To engage in your psychoanalytic bent, this power imbalance has also been said to be inherent in penetration). Consequently, male sexuality is generally displayed with an emphasis on power, potency and virility. Females, as we've already discussed, are often shown as passive and infantilised. These differing portrayals of sexuality have differing effects on each gender.

I agree that sexuality is part of being human, however, the images we're discussing are not just about sexuality. These kinds of images can, among other things, also underscore these power imbalances between the sexes. Again, this is not about individual expressions of sexuality, choice, self-esteem etc. It is about images and their effects on society at large.

Additionally, I have not claimed that the calendar is "evil". That is ludicrous. It's also absurd to expect anyone to draw a direct causal link between "calendars like this" and a lone experience of "sexism" (your term). Unfortunately, and as has already been discussed, the kind of images found in these calendars and elsewhere, have a far broader effect than that.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

rvmdmechanic said:


> Back on topic of the calendar, and moving away from my apparently minority belief in the power of one to think for oneself, and not buy into calendars or media... this is silliness. Someone has already provided well researched evidence to show that the very same calendar is available in a Man-flavorway, I think this just isn't relevant. It's not sexist, it's not impacting the experience of being a woman, it doesn't promote sexual harassment, and since the majority of you ladies won't be buying it... shouldn't affect your self-esteem.
> 
> The calendar is a way to make money. The same sexualized images of women can identically be found of men. Therefore, I propose we move past identifying that as sexism. Perhaps we can attempt to form a "post-gender" society (tongue in cheek sarcasm there) and accept that maybe, what we're discussing is "objectification" or "sexualization" - we can consider that the women or men are no longer being admired for their skills but more for their bodies. We may also consider that it is not just their great muscles or clearly fit shapes, but perhaps the sexuality of these bodies. Then, maybe we can agree - this isn't sexism. This is sexualization or objectification, but it is not an attack on femininity, again, because the same calendar comes in a man flavor - this may sound naive, but I have to say that my sincere understanding of sexism requires that there be some kind of inequality on the basis of gender: I don't think this is it. I think the same kind of treatment is obviously being given, and the same product being bought, regardless of gender.
> 
> ...


Thanks for a great alternative view that I just happen to agree with.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*How about a calendar that illustrates*

extraordinarily good female mtb riding and racing photos?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*The purpose of the calendar*



rvmdmechanic said:


> .
> 
> The calendar is a way to make money.


I read this and realized that my suggestion was lame. All this hi-faluten discussion leads nowhere except to come to some sort of an agreement about a "correct point of view." No matter how refined and esoteric the discussion.

bhg-au tries to circumvent the hard wiring idea by saying:

"We're hardwired for a lot of things. That doesn't necessarily mean they are given full expression. We're not just our limbic systems. Most of us have a frontal lobe as well."

It would be nice to think so. That may work in some rarified area of discussion where we are all trying to make nice and sounding intelligent, but I don't believe for a moment that it represents a majority response any reality base marketing assessment. What "we" are we talking about?


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

Your point regarding hardwiring was not circumvented. It was disagreed with.

That these images sell is not in question, and has been discussed.

It is unfortunate that these points have been addressed in a way that is too "refined", "esoteric","rarified" and _"intelligent"_ for you.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*The whole discussion makes a fundamental mistake*

in its ivory tower-ness. Just look at the language it uses.

I had a conversation with a fellow photographer today at a course I was teaching about digital cameras. He does nudes and teaches nude photography and was pretty frank about how men involve themselves in such imaging. It is rare to have men take such an elite disposition around nudes as has been described in this thread. Few have any awareness or have the desire to develop any sense at all about what a good photo of a nude woman is. His sense of the market for such things is just about the same. Even "artfully done" it is still sex.

As a student of human nature, public relations, and advertising photography, once one starts hearing discussions like this it is so easy to see how far it wanders from the average human consumer. It reflects very well on those in the discussion and the use of their particular "lobes" but in marketing, and that is the point, it is very wide of the mark.

Sex sells.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I'm pleased to see that we agree that "sex sells". Let's leave it at that.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*You are welcome*

to leave it wherever you want.


----------



## Duvers (Jul 18, 2007)

Wow. This thread has a lot of extensive psychoanalyzing the existence of the calendar, and by extension, the ladies who *chose* to participate in it, create it, and sell it. Looks like some women *really* want to impose their belief system on other women. If you don't like it, exercise *your* freedom of choice and don't buy the calendar!!! 

I'm all for a little friendly discussion, but a couple folks (and one in particular) seem to subscribe to the thought that, "If you don't agree with me, you're wrong."


----------



## rvmdmechanic (Sep 18, 2008)

Duvers said:


> Wow. This thread has a lot of extensive psychoanalyzing the existence of the calendar, and by extension, the ladies who *chose* to participate in it, create it, and sell it. Looks like some women *really* want to impose their belief system on other women. If you don't like it, exercise *your* freedom of choice and don't buy the calendar!!!
> 
> I'm all for a little friendly discussion, but a couple folks (and one in particular) seem to subscribe to the thought that, "If you don't agree with me, you're wrong."


It's 50/50 you're referring to me, but I have to whole-heartedly agree; if nothing else, this is my point... just change the channel!
It's fundamental in my personal belief system that while we are all predestined to die, we have ultimate freedom in what happens between now and then... that means if we don't like something we don't have to buy it, and if we love it, we can have 10! (or in america, Supersize Me!)

I think that as always happens in conversations about freedom of speech, we must recognize as well here that freedom means freedom, not freedom with exceptions - it's imperative to sticking with goals of feminism to recognize that women, men, etc. can do anything they want with their choices - the important part is that they got to choose!

It's one fleeting glimmer of hope in the despair of knowing you have to die :thumbsup: Personally, I'm going out on a 50 foot gap.


----------



## Duvers (Jul 18, 2007)

rvmdmechanic said:


> It's 50/50 you're referring to me, but I have to whole-heartedly agree; if nothing else, this is my point... just change the channel!


Nope, I wasn't referring to you. I enjoyed your posts...they were quite interesting and articulate. Your stated your viewpoint and thoughts without attacking those who disagreed with you. :thumbsup:


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

I think, then, that I can safely assume you're referring to me.

Firstly, it's probably fair to say that I have responded strongly to Berkeley Mike. However, that is not because he disagrees with me. It is because it seems dismissive and insulting to everyone (myself included) who's participated in this thread to characterise it as overly "esoteric","rarified", "refined","hi-faluten" etc. This thread has included a wide range of thoughts from a large number of different people. I struggle to accept, and frankly resent, the suggestion that it is "fundamentally flawed" because it is essentially elitist and pretentious.

Secondly, I can not see how I have "attacked" anybody. I have certainly defended my views, especially on the occasions where they have been misrepresented and/or miscomprehended. I thought that was the point of this kind of exchange of ideas.

Thirdly, I agree with rvmdmechanic that _everyone is unconditionally entitled to their own thoughts, feelings and choices.__They are also absolutely entitled to express them._
That is why I keep saying that I am not making any claims about the women involved in making these calendars. I don't know them and I would not presume to make any kind of judgement of their personal choices. _I am talking about the images only and the effects they can have throughout society generally._

Fourthly, as everyone is entitled to their opinions, I think I am equally entitled to disagree with them and to think they are wrong. _This does not in any way diminish their right, or __mine, to hold our own views._ However, I would not be disagreeing with them if I thought they were right.


----------



## MtbRN (Jun 8, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> extraordinarily good female mtb riding and racing photos?


:thumbsup:


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*The greatest value of this forum*

is in the exchange and expression of ideas. It works as long as we just talk about thoughts or how we deal with thoughts or the process. In a public forum it helps to have a thick skin, separate the wheat from the chaff, learn not to take bait, and clarify.


----------



## mellowyellow (Feb 23, 2010)

When it comes down to it whether you think the calendar is nasty or awesome it has done its job in creating awareness. This forum is proof. good press or bad press it gets out there.

Some people say they wouldn't want to join. That's fine most clubs bring together like minded people, and generally if you are not like minded you don't join. That's why there is a diversity of clubs out there.

I personally think people have taken this calendar far to seriously! I think (and a muddbunnie can chime in) that this calendar was meant to be fun and light hearted and maybe even a little cheesy. It's non profit club and probably had little to no budget for this. The girls used what they had their bikes and their bodies and i commend them. I'm sure the photogropher and designer were volunteers along with the girls in the calendars and all the people that helped produce it. 

i'm sure this post will get torn to shreds, because that seems to be the theme here but in the end i think some people have to agree to disagree. Opinions are not fact they are a personal belief.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

mellowyellow said:


> When it comes down to it whether you think the calendar is nasty or awesome it has done its job in creating awareness. This forum is proof. good press or bad press it gets out there.
> 
> Some people say they wouldn't want to join. That's fine most clubs bring together like minded people, and generally if you are not like minded you don't join. That's why there is a diversity of clubs out there.
> 
> ...


Yes, it was meant to be fun, light hearted and cheesy. And yes, it was volunteer based. But that doesn't mean it is incorrect to talk about what it might have achieved and how it did so or anything else...because it does operate within a specific visual culture... but this has been talked about at length.

This thread is just a discussion. Sometimes it got heated, but that's ok. My intent in starting this discussion was to exchange opinions on this (despite having my own strong belief). I personally think it's fun to discuss something anonymously, perhaps have my opinion "torn to shreds" as you put it, or point out the flaws of other people's line of argument etc. No one has insisted that their opinion is the only correct one. For me, the most interesting postings were the ones who obviously spent time thinking about it and attempted to bring something new to the table (but I appreciate everyone's thoughts). I think everyone can agree that none of this was ever intended as an attack on the club itself or any of its members - the criticism for me (and for others - as far as I can tell) was based only on the object of the calendar and the images in it.
One thing I realized from this discussion is that (and I am not trying to sound like a snob) perhaps this type of imagery and especially its context may not be worthy of such critical analysis..


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Finally*



canadiana said:


> perhaps this type of imagery and especially its context may not be worthy of such critical analysis..


Touche.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

canadiana said:


> One thing I realized from this discussion is that (and I am not trying to sound like a snob) perhaps this type of imagery and especially its context may not be worthy of such critical analysis..


...partly because it's like banging your head against a wall.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

it like banging your head against a wall only if you try and try and try to convince people of your position/change their mind, and aren't getting anywhere.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

formica said:


> it like banging your head against a wall only if you try and try and try to convince people of your position/change their mind, and aren't getting anywhere.


Dear Formica:
Apologies if you took my metaphor personally...
Have you even read this thread though??
I am not trying CONVINCE anyone. In most of my long comments I was attempting to discuss the IMAGES only and how they might work. It turned into an interesting conversation with people seeing it in DIFFERENT WAYS. What I was referring to with the above metaphor was certain people's responses to my comments--and comments of others. These responses were in reference to the people represented in the calendar, the club, its intentions, whether the calendar is good or bad etc.--not the actual images themselves. If that is what they wanted to talk about then that is fine, except at times people were a bit aggressive about it in their misinterpretation of my intent. At times the responses that came up were that since I seem to have a problem with the calendar, I must be really insecure with myself because I obviously am not as "hot" as the ladies in the calendar (I think that is pretty hilarious). The other was that I must be a hardcore "feminist" complaining of SEXISM (even though sexism was not brought up and has nothing to do with the pictures). 
The fact that some people were so quick to dismiss the conversation, not even taking the time to consider what was really being discussed (not sexism, not the members of the club, not people's imagined insecurities etc) is the part that was frustrating for me - NOT the fact that people were not agreeing with me (and some people were agreeing, but that is not the point).

Maybe you should read the entire thread (or read it more closely) before passing judgment on people, especially when you know that their opinion is different from yours.

Like I keep saying over and over again I am interested in people's opinions-whatever they may be, especially after they put some THOUGHT into it.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

That was not about you personally.

Duvers put it best, "I'm all for a little friendly discussion, but a couple folks seem to subscribe to the thought that, "If you don't agree with me, you're wrong." 
That is what_* I* _ got, more than anything out of this discussion. That's not necessarily what it's really about, but that is _*my *_perception of where it's been going.

What is really being discussed is certainly up for interpretation, based on one's originating point of view, motives, state of mind, thread drift etc. We've all got a set of personal filters, and this being the internet, no one is really ever going to get someone else's point entirely unless it is a simple straightforward discussion.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

What's wrong with "trying and trying and trying" to convince others of your point of view? 
If somebody approaches me and says: "Look, I see a problem, this is why I see it as a problem and I'd like your help in fixing it.", I take that as a compliment and as a show of respect. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them, but neither do I take it as some kind of affront.

If people throughout history hadn't been persistent in sharing their viewpoint, the US would still have slaves, Australia would still be shooting and raping Aborigines and a woman would still be being told to fix her make-up, put a ribbon in her hair and have dinner waiting for her husband when he gets home from a hard day at the office. "Trying and trying and trying" to convince others of your point of view is just one way of bringing about social change.


----------



## Duvers (Jul 18, 2007)

formica said:


> it like banging your head against a wall only if you try and try and try to convince people of your position/change their mind, and aren't getting anywhere.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



bhg-au said:


> What's wrong with "trying and trying and trying" to convince others of your point of view?
> If somebody approaches me and says: "Look, I see a problem, this is why I see it as a problem and I'd like your help in fixing it."... "Trying and trying and trying" to convince others of your point of view is just one way of bringing about social change.


I've tried to be nice, but, in my _opinion_ [note that I leave room for others who don't agree with me], you're ut: . What you've said here is that, if we don't agree with you, we have a "problem" and need you to help us "fix it." Frankly, it seems that you're a little arrogant to consider yourself the great fixer of our beliefs if we have a different perspective.:nono:

(For what it's worth, I'm laughing at this crazy exchange and amusing myself with the emoticons. If you were talking to me in person, I suspect that you would think I was not taking you seriously enough.)


----------



## Plauscha (Jul 24, 2009)

bhg-au said:


> What's wrong with "trying and trying and trying" to convince others of your point of view?
> If somebody approaches me and says: "Look, I see a problem, this is why I see it as a problem and I'd like your help in fixing it.", I take that as a compliment and as a show of respect. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them, but neither do I take it as some kind of affront.
> 
> If people throughout history hadn't been persistent in sharing their viewpoint, the US would still have slaves, Australia would still be shooting and raping Aborigines and a woman would still be being told to fix her make-up, put a ribbon in her hair and have dinner waiting for her husband when he gets home from a hard day at the office. "Trying and trying and trying" to convince others of your point of view is just one way of bringing about social change.


You do bring up some great points where it was great people tried, tried and tried again. But those are of some serious issues.
I work with a lot of "pretty" girls who use "pretty" to get by. So when I see a pretty girl who is good at something (be it med school or mtn biking) and doesn't rest on "pretty" I feel the need to support her. So I support these pretty girls. Now if these were just models in a mountain bike setting I would not be so supportive.


----------



## gabrielle (Jan 2, 2005)

bhg-au said:


> What's wrong with "trying and trying and trying" to convince others of your point of view?


Once it becomes clear that the person is not actually trying to convince me of their point of view and is instead trying to get me to agree with them, and thus in turn _not respecting *my* point of view_, it's just ... obnoxious is the best word I can come up with right now.

gabrielle


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

formica said:


> That was not about you personally.
> 
> Duvers put it best, "I'm all for a little friendly discussion, but a couple folks seem to subscribe to the thought that, "If you don't agree with me, you're wrong."
> That is what_* I* _ got, more than anything out of this discussion. That's not necessarily what it's really about, but that is _*my *_perception of where it's been going.
> ...


Ok, and since we are reflecting I'd like to add some things.
I think that anything even remotely related to any type of social issue will never be a simple straightforward discussion, as you put it, even if it is a face to face conversation.
I agree that what is being discussed is up for interpretation, but I also think it is not wrong to disagree with someone and articulate that, and even challenged other people's point of view. I am sorry if some people felt alienated from the discussion, but at the same time, the anonymity of the internet encourages free expression for everyone.

It is interesting to me that several people seem to have gotten slightly offended or annoyed by the topic under discussion in general, which led to some borderline rude comments (made on assumptions) directed at the people who were making a case for why they felt the calendar may not be so great.... Some people seem to also be offended at someone suggesting to them that they might be wrong -- if this is all opinion based, why even bring that up, and why get annoyed by it?? Is it not obvious that when someone tells someone else that they are wrong, it is always a case of opinion? Opinion is not the issue here at all. I get so irritated when I am trying to express a thought and have a discussion about it and someone tells me that I am merely expressing my opinion, as if to enlighten me.

The other thing that is quite striking to me is this "laissez-faire" attitude, or in other words, "if it doesn't affect or bother me personally, then I have no stake and I don't care, so I"m just going to be mellow..."

This is obviously not a a black-and-white issue, it's quite complex, I think we can all at least agree on that (and I don't just mean the calendar, but also some of the wider themes that it seems to have pointed to that have been brought up) and it has made for an interesting conversation with people on all sides making useful contributions, no?


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

I still stand by what I said earlier, but on a lighter note (I heard this somewhere and it made me laugh)..

"Opinions are like a__holes. Everyone has one and they all stink!"


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

gabrielle said:


> Once it becomes clear that the person is not actually trying to convince me of their point of view and is instead trying to get me to agree with them, and thus in turn _not respecting *my* point of view_, it's just ... obnoxious is the best word I can come up with right now.
> 
> gabrielle


I take your point, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that wanting to put your point of view to somebody is, in itself, showing that you respect their opinion. Even with disagreement, and perhaps especially with disagreement, I think such an exchange can still be essentially respectful.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! That's not what I'm saying at all. The point I'm trying to make is that by putting your viewpoint to somebody _you are showing that you value their opinion._ Why would you bother to share your thoughts with someone if you weren't interested to know what they thought? To me (whether there is agreement or not) the exchange itself indicates respect.

And, with all due respect, I don't think you've tried to be nice at all.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Yes, but........*

This has been acted out many times. It happens in all sorts of discussions on all the forums; it is the foible of such venues. People stop talking about what they are talking about and start taking at each other instead. They worry under the assumption that they are talking people into things because they are so damned clever or insightful. Then the endless explaining and subsequent protestations which wander from their substance and into personalities and cerebral limitations. Mutual understanding falls aside to a bizarre character analysis and before you know it someone is calling someone else a fascist or the like. 
This site is loaded with active minds and willing riders; the fiat of the community. Ambient learning within a sport so new is hard won in real time in assorted parts of our universe and, too frequently, at no little cost. Such experience has the certainty of continuity. Its lessons are not easily abandoned. In different places and times all certainties are held the same, yet here they are not possible at the same time and there are no absolutes. Closure is elusive.
I'm not sure many minds are changed in the instant but changed gradually as participants are known in their tone of voice time and again. The best we can do is to be clear and ignore the distractions.


----------



## gabrielle (Jan 2, 2005)

bhg-au said:


> I take your point, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that wanting to put your point of view to somebody is, in itself, showing that you respect their opinion. Even with disagreement, and perhaps especially with disagreement, I think such an exchange can still be essentially respectful.


Yabbut yabbut yabbut.

I'm curious, did you sign up for mtbr just so you could post to this thread? 'Cuz it sure looks that way.

gabrielle


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

No. If I were deliberately looking for a forum that discussed this kind of issue, I'd go to one that kept the exchange away from personal attacks.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Maybe this where bgh-au*

felt comfortable entering the forum. Maybe this particular issue was meaningful enough to press the send button.

But no one promised to be gentle.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

gabrielle said:


> Yabbut yabbut yabbut.
> 
> I'm curious, did you sign up for mtbr just so you could post to this thread? 'Cuz it sure looks that way.
> 
> ...


----------



## MtbRN (Jun 8, 2006)

gabrielle said:


> Yabbut yabbut yabbut.
> 
> I'm curious, did you sign up for mtbr just so you could post to this thread? 'Cuz it sure looks that way.
> 
> gabrielle


And what would be wrong with that? So someone signs up so they can enter a discussion that interests them... isn't that the whole point of having a discussion board in the first place?

Personally I found the whole discussion pretty interesting, _until people started taking pot shots at each other_. Even though the arguments have been put forth many times before (I remember debating similar concepts in my "Womens Studies" classes in college waaaay back in the 80's), it's still encouraging to see that people do look critically at the media and think for themselves. There is not enough of that done these days, IMHO.


----------



## canadiana (Jan 27, 2010)

MtbRN said:


> And what would be wrong with that? So someone signs up so they can enter a discussion that interests them... isn't that the whole point of having a discussion board in the first place?
> 
> Personally I found the whole discussion pretty interesting, _until people started taking pot shots at each other_. Even though the arguments have been put forth many times before (I remember debating similar concepts in my "Womens Studies" classes in college waaaay back in the 80's), it's still encouraging to see that people do look critically at the media and think for themselves. There is not enough of that done these days, IMHO.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*It IS pretty well-covered ground*

and the reference to Women's (in Italics) Studies in the 80s is apt.I go back toe the 60's and 70s myself. FWIW I see two features:

1) A difference of being understood vs. that of persuading and what people do to express those needs.

2) The minimizing of hardwiring effects.

As to the first there are numerous examples in this thread. As to the second. I will cite two examples.

Yesterday during practice I had two girls at each other over a name calling incident. One complimented the power of another (that is my genuine belief) but used the term thunder thighs. The other retaliated by calling her chunky butt and these two nattered at each other for about 20 minutes as if there were something to argue about which could be solved. I tried to intervene with humor and goodwill but they would not let it go. I decided to turn up the tempo in the paceline 2 notches and that at least made for quiet. I found out that one of them was having cramps. Later during dirt laps I pulled back the pace for one and then upped the pace for another. These girls are friends. They are only human.

I was listening to NPR, the voice of reason and truth  , to an article on an experiment teaching chimps about money and economy. As usual they caught on quickly to a method of performing tasks and getting coin. The first thing the male did when he got his money was to give it to a female chimp for sex. The transaction was executed expeditiously. They just didn't make a big deal out of it. What do they know; they are only chimps.


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I was listening to NPR, the voice of reason and truth  , to an article on an experiment teaching chimps about money and economy. As usual they caught on quickly to a method of performing tasks and getting coin. The first thing the male did when he got his money was to give it to a female chimp for sex. The transaction was executed expeditiously. They just didn't make a big deal out of it. What do they know; they are only chimps.


I agree with you that we're hardwired to enjoy the physical aspects of sex. I don't mean to minimise that. I'm just saying that those hardwired responses are moderated. To the same extent that one part of the brain responds with pleasure to sexual stimuli, another moderates that response with social expectations, an understanding of possible consequences and moral/ethical considerations. It would seem to me that the outcome of this interaction is that sexual responses are expressed within the bounds of social mores.

I understand, too, that we have a lot in common with chimps, however one of the main differences is in the part of the brain responsible for the higher functions mentioned above. That part of the brain is much larger in humans than in chimps and has many more gene networks. Also, chimp society appears to have considerably!!!! more "direct" courtship rituals than human society. I'm not sure that this case of chimp behaviour can be easily translated into the kind of human behaviour we've been discussing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Then you make my point and but may not understand why.*

We are not chimps. We wrestle with stuff like this like the devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other. We constantly struggle with accepting our nature. In honor of that we have a secret ballot in this democracy. What one does in the privacy between ones ears is often very different from what they are willing to say. Just look at exit polls versus actual results on issues of race. Pretty revealing. It is something marketing folk understand so very well.

Who are we fooling?


----------



## bhg-au (Jan 28, 2010)

We fool ourselves when we emphasise one aspect of our "nature" over another.


----------

