# Interbike Fail



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Anyone else get a side of sexism with their coffee this morning?

https://www.facebook.com/prettydamn...41830.761963647195239/967868803271388/?type=1

Just in case anyone had doubts about where you, as a woman, fit in in this industry, doubt no more!

But really, how do we better reach out to women? *sarcasm*

:madman:


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

More info from the comments thread on the original photo on Pretty. Damn. Fast's FB page: 

- this is a single sock, given in the reg bags at Interbike
- you're meant to go to the sponsor's booth to pick up the match
- while at the same time, Interbike is hosting multiple panels on women in cycling and how to get us involved more, how to reach us, how to sell to us.


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

I'm surprised at the women (I mean, everyone's perceptions are different and everyone has a right to their own opinion) that didn't find anything wrong with these socks being given away. Although somehow I thought, wow, look at those dudes with long hair and g-strings (yeah, right, insert heavy sarcasm).


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

does the right hand of the industry not know what the left hand is doing? 
IE, what you've all said.... "how do we get more women involved in cycling?"


Which sock maker, btw.

Is there a twitter hashtag?


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

formica said:


> does the right hand of the industry not know what the left hand is doing?
> IE, what you've all said.... "how do we get more women involved in cycling?"
> 
> Which sock maker, btw.


PDF won't say because she doesn't want to buy into their publicity stunt. *EDIT: it was Save Our Soles.....*

What really gets me is that THIS ******** is now going to dominate the conversation on women in cycling at Interbike. Hopefully people don't buy in. (Ironic, I realize, since I'm talking about it now.)


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I see nothing wrong with saying how disgusting a sock manufacturer is for perpetuating this stuff...


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

^ Right - either way, they're getting what they want - publicity. And I guarantee the women that are offended are going to be told that they need to "relax" and "chill" and not take it so seriously and that we're just overreacting (like always). Such a shame.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

More disjointed, random thoughts... 

This also kind of pisses me off because we're at an important crossroads as a cycling community... We're fighting tooth and nail for trail access, it's open season on cyclists on the road, we NEED the rest of the world to take us ****ing seriously... And this is the immature, crass, and yes, sexist image that this company wants to put out there.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Nice! Interbike apologized on Twitter and FB and pulled the socks from bags.

https://twitter.com/Interbike

https://www.facebook.com/interbike


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

edited - well I was TRYING to remove the attachment.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Edited my previous post, it wasn't SockGuy...


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

^whew, glad about that.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

So bad. Same with Assos. Ugh.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

What did Assos do this time?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Their regular ads with topless women


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

The fish rots from the head. Someone made the decision to include that item in the welcome bag... and no one questioned or voiced that this was wrong? Boo!


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Surly FTW 
http://surlybikes.com/blog/post/our_own_two_wheels


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

I did a little work in the bike industry way back. I was able to go to Interbike a couple times and I don't remember anything like this!

It seems to me things are getting worse for women in the cycling community or am I just becoming more aware?


----------



## Asterope (Mar 11, 2014)

We've been talking about this publicity stunt at "chicks who ride bikes" on FB - good to know who the company/maker is so they can be avoided.

Oh... and we agreed that these sorts of socks have a purpose - to readily identify douchecanoes hence facilitating easy avoidance.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Sock guy, from twitter


----------



## Acme54321 (Oct 8, 2003)

Sock Guy has been making socks with trucker mudflap girls for years. No one seems to care about that?


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

SOS is just doubling down on their FB pages(??)... Because "it's Vegas."

https://www.facebook.com/save.soles.5?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/sossocks?fref=ts


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Acme54321 said:


> Sock Guy has been making socks with trucker mudflap girls for years. No one seems to care about that?


Here's the difference, IMO:

The mudflap girl socks are a product someone can buy. They're just one of many stupid items you can choose to buy or ignore.

Take into account the current climate of women in cycling: road pros are fighting tooth and nail for equal race opportunities, equal payouts, fair representation. *Podium girls* get more attention than the actual professional women athletes who are racing off-screen. MTB pro racing is better, but not completely equal yet. Women working in the industry are routinely harassed (see Surly blog post above; see also Amanda Batty). And the industry is (bafflingly) falling all over itself wondering, "How do we reach women?"

These socks from SOS were given out in *every* swag bag (until Interbike pulled them) to *every* attendee of Interbike. To me, seeing that post on FB was a big fat reminder of all the above--hey ladies, remember your place. This is what we really think you're good for.

If it's really just all about Vegas and Sin City and a free sexual atmosphere, then okay, cool--I'd also expect to see some Magic Mike-esque male models on the other side, for the women and men who like men. But no. They're choosing only to represent women this way. Because our best use in this industry and community is to be the subject of male gaze.

And **** all that.


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

Acme54321 said:


> Sock Guy has been making socks with trucker mudflap girls for years. No one seems to care about that?


NFW can you compare those to these.

As someone that makes a living in marketing. That is one massive f*ck up. It's one thing for some fringe clothing company to try some lowbrow attempt at publicity (which that was)...but to have that forced on everyone that went? People are free to make whatever clothing item they like. I am not advocating censorship but people need to have the right to choose, and it that instance it was taken away.

What happens when you bring your swag bag back and your kid finds those? Just idiotic and whoever green lit that should be disciplined if not fired.

From Interbike

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/643814660349624320


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Here's the explanation, 
Singletrack Magazine | What She Said: Put A Sock In It



> What She Said: Put A Sock In It
> 
> #sockgate has once again allowed the ugly dragon of sexism to rear its head in the bike industry. Before you turn away thinking that this is just another rant by a woman about something that I'm 'oversensitive' about, I'd suggest you challenge that thinking by reading on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

And in case folks haven't seen it yet: Is this thing sexist? Introducing the ?Bike Test? | Taking the Lane


----------



## catsruletn (Dec 7, 2013)

littlebird said:


> Here's the difference, IMO:
> 
> The mudflap girl socks are a product someone can buy. They're just one of many stupid items you can choose to buy or ignore.
> 
> ...


+1. If I saw a guy on the trail wearing these I wouldn't have a problem with them. But the fact that these were presented in an official way at a professional event that at least theoretically should be attempting to include women and make women feel welcomed and included, was just really dumb and tone deaf. And pretty offensive.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

never mind


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

formica said:


> Maybe sock guy is not so innocent after alll
> https://evomo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/evomo_interbike07_aug1516.jpg


Oh Jesus Christ.

I quit.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

They said that its from 2007 and they made a mistake. I'm in for people growing. God knows I have.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

^^^ Good to hear, thanks girlonbike.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I couldn't find a reference as to whether that's new or old stuff from sock guy... I did look.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

thanks for looking that up. Editing post now...


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Hey, speaking of, what setting do I change so I can see my own and other's profanity? :lol:


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Tapatalk doesn't use asterisks on words like ****, ***** and who knows what else.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Reading the sock company's FB page, he seems to take the approach that, "well, it's Las Vegas. That's what we (subtext: men) do here..." There are other shows in LV that he could have chosen as a theme, like this one:


----------



## stacers (Oct 29, 2012)

Another well-written response => Is a Sock Just a Sock? | 303Cycling News


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

From our beloved Amanda Batty:
the drawing board: If You Don't Like It, Leave



> If You Don't Like It, Leave
> Dear Steve Tofan,
> 
> You seem to be rather unfamiliar with the cycling industry. Or rather, your company's behavior seems ignorant of the developments and trends within the cycling industry, something that a former outdoor industry rep's company should never be. But. It seems as though you are fairly uninformed about the issues within cycling, which is why I'm writing this letter.
> ...


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

hashtag #sockgate btw.
Interbike, #sockgate and women in cycling



> Allow me to set a scene for you: It has been a long and arduous journey for women in cycling, from those who work with bicycles for a living to those who simply find joy when riding them. For decades, we haven't been seen as equals or deserving of either employment or representation because we don't measure up or shred hard enough or constitute a large-enough market. Still, those of us with decades-old passions for cycling, myself included, found avenues and bicycles and gear and just did what we loved, which was to ride.
> 
> Meanwhile, what we longed for was to be seen as "cyclists," not as objects. All we really wanted was for bike shops and bike companies to acknowledge our existence even a little bit. Interested in women shopping with you? Be nice; it's that simple. I don't need to be treated like a princess or given wine when I walk in your door. I only request that you not be a dick to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Love this one from the twittersphere...


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## catzilla (Jan 31, 2004)

Semi-related note:

This was in Outside this month, because it naturally makes sense to pair an article about Fantasy Ski and Fishing leagues (a la Fantasy Football) with a cartoon of Lindsey Vonn dressed as a French maid and Kelly Slater wearing a toolbelt.

Also, in a magazine filled with images of athletes on nearly every page, I could find one image of a female athlete.


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Yessss, that Amanda Batty post FTW. As usual. 


WTF does that Enduro mag cover image have to do with mountain biking......? 


I apologize in advance for any shitty mood you might pick up from me today on this topic. Got street harassed on the way to work today. (On what should be a really good day.) But yeah. "They're just socks." #sarcasm I am just sooooo over everything right now.


----------



## catzilla (Jan 31, 2004)

It's hard to discuss the issue intelligently with people who comment with **** like, "these fat feminist *****es are just jealous."

The irony of statements like those is almost funny.

Almost.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Sometimes I have a fleeting of a sense a tipping point and feel very hopeful.

My sons give me a lot of hope. Ages 26 & 29, and they are both very modern, staunch feminists/humanists. I was raised with a bra-burning mother, and where the hope is rooted is in (some) of the younger generation and how I know they see the world.

and then new/old pops up again...


> Oh Jesus Christ.
> 
> I quit.


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

It does matter! We cannot expect change if we don't demand it. Maybe it's going to take a while, but at least we're heading in the right direction. No longer can they just shrug us off and say "meh, there they go again". Social pressure is telling society that it is NOT OKAY to treat women this way. Ever. It's not going to happen sitting back and just accepting this kind of thing as "it is what it is". It is what we make it. We can't expect change if we don't say something. And we are. We're speaking out, we're writing, and we're going to show it with our purchases. 

I can't wait to purchase that issue of Dirt Rag Magazine...


----------



## elainelb (Aug 1, 2014)

I'm pretty new here but I'll chime in. I just looked at the Dirt Rag article online...great article, a slew of disturbing comments. 
Looking at the manufacturer's website I do see lots of gear targeting women. Also they sponsor Tough Girl Cycling. It's always been a weird juxtaposition seeing companies talk about 'green' practices, donating to homeless shelters, etc. while doing things like this. Their distributors (and the contact info) are all listed on their site (thanks Petey15 for the reminder).


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Now if only we can do something about all the Miley Cyrus's and the Kim Kardashian's . This media divides us.

I grew up on L.A. where I have been stabbed in the back by some women who I thought were my friends. Maybe it's because of society's pressure. IDK. 

The MTB women's community has help me regain trust and bond with other women. I want more women to experience this.

I hate to see the sport I love and sought refuge in go down this same old path.

Sorry if i'm getting off topic here .


----------



## stacers (Oct 29, 2012)

I wondered what Beti Bike Bash (huge women's-only mountain bike race in CO) would do with this, since Save Our Soles was one of their big sponsors this year. Here's their response on Facebook today:



> Before we arrived at Interbike yesterday, a certain sock issue hit social media. Save our Soles, a local Colorado company and sponsor of the Beti Bike Bash last year, produced these socks as a marketing promo. After meeting with them today and giving them an opportunity to apologize with their poor and sexist choice, they instead adamantly stood behind this image. This is not a company that used good judgment for empowering women in our sport, which is the exact opposite message our event supports. We all deserve better from the cycling industry regardless of where a cycling event is held.
> We did otherwise have an extremely positive day of meetings with several companies who believe in getting women on bikes without having to downgrade to a perception that sex sells.


Glad to see the Yeti Betis doing the right thing, and sort of fascinated that this guy can't seem to just realize it was wrong and apologize.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

As a dude, I have tried to speak out on Facebook in the MTBR comments, the Dirt Rag and Bicycle Times' page's comments, and each time I was overrun by dudes saying I was making a big deal over nothing.

This was basically my retort after I was told (by other men) to stop being concerned with it, like it was weird that I understood an alternate point of view.



> "I suppose I don't need to care about women not feeling equal and included in this sport. I'm a dude! Having a dick is great.
> 
> I don't need to care about the more-than-a-few female riders I've met over the years, a few I count as friends. They can get over it, its just some socks!
> 
> ...


Anyways- I just wanted to point out that, as a dude, I understand, or at least I try to empathize as much as I am able. Sorry a lot of us are morons.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Either I did read your comments *somewhere* on the intrawebs, or very similar. It's appreciated. Are you the Jared that Amanda Batty refers to?


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

formica said:


> Either I did read your comments *somewhere* on the intrawebs, or very similar. It's appreciated. Are you the Jared that Amanda Batty refers to?


I was thinking the same thing myself. It is appreciated - and validating.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

I hope that I did a positive thing by posting about this in the general forum. I feel pretty strongly that this is an issue that men need to speak up about, too. (I mean the broader issue of gender inclusiveness in MTB, not just these socks.) Hopefully I did something more than just create a forum for the weenie-wavers, we'll see.

Keep fighting the good fight. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice, right?


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I was somewhat tempted to link to this discussion, OldManBike but I've held off. Why? I'm sick of tired of having to explain yet again why (the collective) we are so disgusted with this stuff to folks who don't get it, or think it's an over reaction or whatever.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Yes, I considered doing that but realized it wasn't my place to funnel the yo-yos into a thread and a subforum that don't exist for them (or me).


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Hah, that didn't take long. If people are wondering where the reaction is, they are not paying attention to the big players in the blogosphere. I'm not surprised at the comments either.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I'm having a really hard time imagining how anyone thought this was a good idea in the first place, much less arguing in favor of it now. I'm far from a prude and T&A catches my attention as much as any straight male, but come on. This was inappropriate across the board and that shouldn't require a discussion or explanation. 

I help run a race series and we are stoked about the growth of our women and junior categories. Maybe that gives me a slightly different perspective about what's appropriate and welcome, but it shouldn't. I'd like to think no special insight would be necessary, but Q.E.D.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

formica said:


> Either I did read your comments *somewhere* on the intrawebs, or very similar. It's appreciated. Are you the Jared that Amanda Batty refers to?


Lol, unsure. But I'm Jared Neff on FB. And in real life. EDIT: different Jared.

I sort of feel weird speaking out, as if it's not my battle, but at the same time, there SHOULD be dudes speaking out.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Please do speak out. Maybe if a guy who gets it explains, he won't get dismissed as overreacting and sensitive. It is your battle: it's about respecting people, and developing a new way of thinking that doesn't sexualize women. Change begins at home.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

...and another interesting commentary. I don't agree with a lot of it, but here ya go.
California Streaming - If you want to destroy misogynist socks, hold this thread as we walk away from Las Vegas.

BTW, above says the designer was a female. Anyone know anything about that?


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

I'm aware that my views as a female rider don't always jive with this forum, and I've respected that by bowing out of most of the discussions, but I feel obligated to share this, and mostly because of this line:

"Every day, most of us waste time making decisions to alter our current appearance. Clothes, make up, tattoos, hair, plastic surgery. Whatever. All we're doing is changing how we as objects end up on someone's retina and are then perceived by those viewing us. We treat ourselves like objects, tell our fragile psyches that we "feel better about ourselves" this way or that."

I am genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this point. Full blog post, for your reference:

Bad Idea Racing: One more reason to walk off the planet


----------



## -Todd- (Jun 13, 2011)

Social Media promoting a short sighted mistake serves no purpose other than to escalate an error in judgment. #getoveryourself


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

-Todd- said:


> Social Media promoting a short sighted mistake serves no purpose other than to escalate an error in judgment. #getoveryourself


Yeah you're one of those, I guess. No big deal, forget about it so nobody learns from it, etc.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

-Todd- said:


> Social Media promoting a short sighted mistake serves no purpose other than to escalate an error in judgment. #getoveryourself


I think you meant post in the GD thread, not the WL.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

formica said:


> I think you meant post in the GD thread, not the WL.


I think that is part of the issue at hand. When the two discussions become the same discussion, maybe we'll get somewhere.

I understand that you all come here to discuss your common experiences, but what good does it do when it's limited to this circle? This forum is very good at affirming your current views, which is okay, but when a different view is presented, the responses are quite abrasive and counter-productive. In my opinion, of course.


----------



## -Todd- (Jun 13, 2011)

formica said:


> I think you meant post in the GD thread, not the WL.


LOL. Yup...


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> #getoveryourself.


isn't exactly conducive to discourse but I suppose I could have ignored it.

I do get what you are saying about being open to discussion. ... but in my experience there's a) no changing anyone's mind on the internet and b)I'm really sick of being told (primarily by men) that my opinion/experience is wrong or invalid. This is why I haven't ventured into the GD discussion. I admit, I do want to discuss this in a safe little cocoon. I would discuss how to move forward, but I would not want to explain why I'm outraged and that it is not overreacting, or I need to get over it.

In regards to the blog you linked to,
It is a complicated issue, and I don't deny the biological hardwiring. If there was a way to move to honoring the hardwiring - attraction based on attractiveness and appreciation of beauty, without turning people into pieces of meat, well, that would be wonderful.
The way I see it that as a culture we've moved way past sex sells, to a point where women are not people anymore, but sexualized in a way that feels unsafe.

I disagree with the nudity reference and think it's a real stretch. It's not very well thought out, for one thing. Tribal nudity or a European nude beach? He should clarify. It's easy for him to talk about showing chest hair and taking his shirt off if he's never had the experience of someone telling saying take your baby into a bathroom to breast feed it. Really the whole thing was kind of rambling and not very focused.

As with most things in life, our reactions are based on the sum of our experiences.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Deep Thought said:


> I'm aware that my views as a female rider don't always jive with this forum, and I've respected that by bowing out of most of the discussions, but I feel obligated to share this, and mostly because of this line:
> 
> "Every day, most of us waste time making decisions to alter our current appearance. Clothes, make up, tattoos, hair, plastic surgery. Whatever. All we're doing is changing how we as objects end up on someone's retina and are then perceived by those viewing us. We treat ourselves like objects, tell our fragile psyches that we "feel better about ourselves" this way or that."
> 
> ...


Re: what you quoted--that's absolutely true. The human ego is absolutely tied up with aesthetic beauty ideals (which change according to culture and history). That's simply a fact of human existence.

I don't think I treat myself like an object, though. I mean, knowing that I have just this one body for my life means I treat myself better than... any of my possessions (except my husband's electronics and our bikes, probably, haha). And I don't see the people in my life as an object, either. I mean, that's a pretty disgusting prospect. I'm not sure what I can say about the fact that some people genuinely view themselves and other people as objects, not human animals with emotions, memories, feelings... I think that's actually called psychopathy, right?

What I really can't get on board with is the whole ape-like basal instinct monkey mind thing. Just because we're descended from apes doesn't mean we have an excuse not to rise to a higher level of consciousness. No doubt, animal passion between consenting adults is awesome and amazing.

But no one can deny that every minute of every day, women across the world are subjected to physical and emotional violence simply because of our gender. And no, not all men commit violence against women, but the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of violence against women are men. And they do it to assert power over women, and in order to be able to do it, they have to dehumanize women--i.e., treat us like objects and less than and unworthy. Reduce us to our parts so we're no different from a blow-up doll. And media representation that dehumanizes and objectifies women contributes to this.

So, if we take the entire culture we live in and set it aside for a moment, yes, they're just socks. But we can't do that. We live in a culture that dehumanizes women and judges us by what the majority culture view as beautiful and worthy and there are real life implications here that include violence, rape, murder *just because* of our gender. Not to mention **** like women who are considered conventionally attractive make more money for the same work. Etc. etc. etc. We could go on for days.

I don't love Caitlin Moran, but I will continually come back to her "Is it sexist?" test: If men never, ever have to put up with this **** (similar idea to the blog post linked upthread), then it's probably sexist.

Regarding other cultures--yes, there are cultures where women walk around topless. That's mostly because breasts are viewed in those cultures as the organs which feed infants, not as sexual organs, like in our culture. But sexual mores aren't really the argument here. You can be sex-positive (I am) and also feel that using women's naked asses as advertising is objective, especially in certain contexts.

Might come back and write more, but this is probably enough for now...


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

when a woman has an opinion (humor)




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=708555489288868


----------



## catzilla (Jan 31, 2004)

Deep Thought said:


> I think that is part of the issue at hand. When the two discussions become the same discussion, maybe we'll get somewhere.
> 
> I understand that you all come here to discuss your common experiences, but what good does it do when it's limited to this circle? This forum is very good at affirming your current views, which is okay, but when a different view is presented, the responses are quite abrasive and counter-productive. In my opinion, of course.


I have been reading quite a number of threads, both that are more frequented by men and those more frequented by women. I come here to read this thread at the end of the day, because it washes away the frustration of explaining over and over and over and over again that this isn't about the socks. It's about a pattern experienced by nearly every industry female and many everyday riders.

I come here because I get earnestly disheartened at the time and effort spent trying to explain what is behind the frustration and seeing the same response repeated hundreds of times to these well-thought out explanations.

I'm beginning to wonder if, "LOLl. Where can I get those?" makes up the entirety of the witty-douchebag handbook.


----------



## catzilla (Jan 31, 2004)

-Todd- said:


> Social Media promoting a short sighted mistake serves no purpose other than to escalate an error in judgment. #getoveryourself


This isn't about a one-off mistake by a single company.

Read any of the commentaries about this and you'll see that fact pointed out repeatedly. Of course, it's more comfortable to dismiss this as just another internet outrage about a non-issue than to have the long-brewing discussion about the dirty side of the bike industry. To that point, it should be evidence enough that threads dominated by men see this is a laughable non-issue and those dominated by women see this as a symbol of many, many shared experiences.

(Here are various commentaries that point out how this isn't about the socks:

Interbike, #sockgate and women in cycling
Our Own Two Wheels | Blog | Surly Bikes
Singletrack Magazine | Interbike Spawns Sockgate Scandal
WTF Interbike? | Gear Junkie

There are plenty of others, but they all make similar points.)


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> I'm beginning to wonder if, "LOLl. Where can I get those?" makes up the entirety of the witty-douchebag handbook.


I'm thinking that "women are pissed because they are jealous they don't have asses like that" is the winner in my book.


----------



## sooshee (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm far far FAR more disgusted at the payout breakdown of the men vs women in the UCI world cup race at Cross Vegas than I am by these socks. But that's just me...


----------



## catzilla (Jan 31, 2004)

sooshee said:


> I'm far far FAR more disgusted at the payout breakdown of the men vs women in the UCI world cup race at Cross Vegas than I am by these socks. But that's just me...


I think that, and so much more, is the heart of the issue with "the socks."

The socks are just one of many symptoms of a much larger problem.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

When people rail on large groups of society, they probably reveal a lot more of their insecurities than they intended.


----------



## catzilla (Jan 31, 2004)

Stripes said:


> I'm thinking of doing a fundraiser for getting more women into mountain biking.
> 
> Anyone want to help me design a version of the socks that have men in a banana hammock? I'm not the best artist, but it would be a fun point to make  Also, the money would go to a good cause like a women's MTB non-profit to donate to that I can't think of right now..


The problem is that guys in banana hammocks don't make the same point because the context is so very different.

If you want to make a point, I'd say to put a picture of women riding on the socks.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I concur. The context isn't the same, and then there's the "reverse objectification" issue. Ive seen some great designs come out of this discussion. If they're actually being made, I'm not sure. Bikeyface has some really fun ideas, but what I really want is the Rosie the Riveter ones I saw.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

If you go to #sockgate on twitter, you should be able to pick up a lot of the images and who they are coming from.


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

catzilla said:


> I have been reading quite a number of threads, both that are more frequented by men and those more frequented by women. I come here to read this thread at the end of the day, because it washes away the frustration of explaining over and over and over and over again that this isn't about the socks. It's about a pattern experienced by nearly every industry female and many everyday riders.
> 
> I come here because I get earnestly disheartened at the time and effort spent trying to explain what is behind the frustration and seeing the same response repeated hundreds of times... makes up the entirety of the witty-douchebag handbook.


Here's something a female friend of mine wrote on another subject which was humor. This might shed some insight into the kind of guys you are trying to explain things to... and I hope it makes you feel better.

_"Men tend to be weak-minded about it, their 'jokes' aren't usually the same kind of funny, if at all. It's like a guy says 'cork' and other guys will giggle about it, versus a woman saying 'cunning linguist' and getting a few smirks.

I'm not saying that women are necessarily smarter than men. The span of the intelligence spectrum and the distribution between the two sexes are different. Men are more likely to be on the extremes, women are more likely to be towards the middle of the curve. The psychological differences tend to make women more aware of subtleties in humor. Men will either not be capable of 'getting it' or will be smart enough to shut the **** up unless they can play at our level or above.

Unfortunately, intelligent men have the limitation of fewer peers who can share in their humor.* Stupid men can have a much wider audience but they're too stupid to know the differences between being laughed with and being laughed at*. Women have it a bit easier, it's more likely for us to understand each others' humor and we tend to adjust things in such a way that it can still be funny even if another doesn't fully get the joke, she'll still get most of it. We also have our secret language of the sisterhood that will never be revealed to typical men. The derps will be too busy e-masculating each other to realize that we've just emasculated them quite severely. The smarties will either be able to play along with us or will be smart enough to stfu."_

Anyway I found this insightful.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

> Unfortunately, intelligent men have the limitation of fewer peers who can share in their humor.


Hey, that's me at work most days :lol:


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

He said he "rode them first"...play on words?


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

So, I've been at Interbike working for the last week and haven't had time to participate in this conversation online and am still a bit swamped. That doesn't mean that folks weren't talking about it there. Overall, this was my on-site impression of how it was handled and general industry reaction:

• the real industry professionals were generally unimpressed. None of us have time for that kind of garbage, and it didn't exactly move SOS into the sock vendor of choice list. You don't see booth babes at the show much anymore (except you, DVO - what's up with that? That is one bit of Marz heritage you can let go of) - most everyone has matured their marketing beyond that kind of sad display, and generally the annoyance over this incident shows the intolerance we have for unprofessional shenanigans. 

• Any marketing professional worth their salt knows that this kind of thing hurts sales. That "sex sells" cliche just isn't true - it's been shown in study after study that sex-based ads either have no effect or actually reduce sales in some cases. And frankly, it's indicative of someone just not having any good ideas. I'd send any staff member of mine that brought that to me back to the drawing board with an admonishment to not be so lazy. 

• Companies that pay attention are trying to grow their women's market right now. The women's demographic is growing faster than almost any other group and will represent more and more revenue as time passes. The only group currently declining is middle age men. Businesses are going to cater to them less and less.

• most of the educated folks in the industry know that ditching this kind of marketing is the right thing to do. I really didn't talk to anyone I consider competent that defended the socks. 

• I'm proud of the many industry women who stood up and said what they thought. That isn't always easy to do.


----------



## laine (Oct 4, 2012)

Just catching up on this and it shocks me (yet doesn't shock me) that this is still happening. I work for a large tech company in Silicon Valley and all the companies around here are killing themselves to attract more women (and minorities). Facebook and Reddit give 4 months fully paid parental leave (that applies to both men and women). Google gives 4-5 months to women, in case there are complications. Netflix gives unlimited leave to both parents in the first year. Having women as part of a company is smart business, since we make up half the population.

Mistakes do happen (see Twitter frat party), but responses are usually quick and apologetic. I mean, that's just good PR. The SOS founder may not think anything was wrong with what he did, but he could have shaped the apology message. (Yes, I'm a media cynic.)

Not pissing off women is just good business. This guy is a total moron. The white guy (and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the majority of male mtn bikers are white guys) population is declining. Now is the time to reach out to new riders and build trust and loyalty. This is more of why I'm shocked - not that he may be sexist or tasteless, but that he doesn't understand the business implications.

-laine


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

laine said:


> The white guy (and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the majority of male mtn bikers are white guys) population is declining.
> -laine


Glad to hear that! I always believed "the white man's keepin me down".


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

As a cisgender straight white man, I am cool with the decline of my "type's" superiority. Any benefits I receive from it are not worth the suffering (minor and major) that other races, genders, and sexual orientations endure.

My father in law is a good example of the white man clinging to the last grasps of it's power; he is a republican and is brainwashed by all of the ultra conservative talk radio and Fox News etc. - much of it is obviously fear mongering in a last ditch attempt to keep (mostly wealthy) white men superior to everyone else.

Part of this is just the evolution of world population- we've known for a while now that the Hispanic and asian cultures would slowly take over. There's just simply more of them as time goes on. (Not that there aren't scary/weird efforts to thwart this). But part of it is social, and in the case of women, far overdue, and now we have (relatively) newer battles like the fight for GLBT equality.

Anyways, it's getting better slowly but surely... I hope!


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

More from Batty: https://www.facebook.com/officialam...fset=0&total_comments=2&notif_t=photo_comment

Killing it, as usual.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

chuky said:


> The only group currently declining is middle age men. Businesses are going to cater to them less and less.


uh oh! I think that's most of the posters on mtbr! I hear the whining already!


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

(from the other thread)


> What are the 100 different ways other than socks? Maybe it's just my area or I'm not paying attention or something but I don't see 100 ways the industry is giving a middle finger to women. I'm genuinely curious.


ahhhh... must not get started....


----------



## Trailrider92 (Nov 13, 2012)

This topic, along with many of the other topics related to sexism that come up on this thread rather frequently, always make me realize that there are both sides to the story. As a chick who shreds, my knee-jerk reaction is to be pissed, because of all the aforementioned reasons (it’s sexist, it’s objectifying women, blady-dee-blah). I agree with you ladies on a lot of this, I really do, but since that horse has been beat dead, let me explain why I also..well, kind of disagree as well. And I mean this only to be thought-provoking, so please don’t come at me with “don’t feel the troll” signs. The fact of the matter is, I don't really know how I feel about this-these are just my thoughts.


First, these socks (along with any sexualized images of women in marketing), do not apply to ALL women (duhh). This argument of “it’s showing women-so it’s offensive to all women” is, honestly, pretty sexist in itself IMO. If you see these socks with women in thongs, and then get offended by it, it’s because you somehow think that representation of women somehow represents you. These aren’t representative of all women, and they’re not trying to be. I wouldn’t let the image of scantily clad women selling sex apply to me anymore than I would let the image of a ballerina selling ballet slippers (okay bad example), apply to me. 

As this applies to men: Are there misogynist pigs out there who truly believe women solely exist for their sexual pleasure? Absolutely. Are these men the majority? Absolutely not. I know many of my guy friends (and I’ll admit, most of my friends are dudes), that will oogle at playboy-esque images of women in magazines, but also have the utmost respect for women (or anyone!) that can shred. Do these men enjoy sexualized images of women? Of course! Do they then take that and apply it to their view on women in general? No..not at all. Seriously, I’m definitely the “token chick” in our little mtb group, and I’ve always been treated like an equal. Are these socks catering to the most primitive part of mens’ brains? Yes. And is it lazy, gimmicky marketing? Obviously. But do you really believe that the people in charge of marketing for this sock company really think that a woman’s worth is her sexual appeal? I highly, HIGHLY doubt it. The people who made that marketing decision are clearly not the brightest, but I don’t think they’re as misogynistic as they’ve been made out to be, either. I think the extent of the thought they put into it was "let's put some stripper socks in our bags since it's in vegas, that'll be fun!". And that's probably all the thought that went into that.

Which brings me to my third point. The mtb industry is prominently men. Yes, it’s starting to even out, which is great! (although I don't quite understand the deliberate effort to force more women into the sport, but that's a conversation for a different time). However, I don’t think that mtb has ever been a “boys club” because of any deliberate effort on behalf of men to exclude women. I honestly just think men are naturally more inclined to enjoy mtb than women. Obviously, there are still tons of women who love to ride, but I think the fact that more men ride is more psychological then societal. And I’m saying this as a girl, whose tried in vein to get some of my chick friends to ride, to no avail, but have easily converted some of my male friends to mtbers. Anyway, my point is, the market is going to trend towards the majority. And lazy marketers are going to go with the easy way of pleasing the majority. Again, stupid. But I don't think they meant any harm.


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

Dear "token chick",

Please check your internalized misogyny.

1. Women are not less biologically likely to engage in sports. Your argument is IDENTICAL to the argument used when explaining women and minorities lack of participation in STEM careers, i.e. "if minorities wanted to be doctors they would just study harder, but they don't seem to be interested". Utter bulls**t. A woman or minority with the opportunity to participate in quality math and science education from an early age will embrace it. A woman included in the same athletic opportunities as her brothers will grow up to be a physically active adult. Any adult, male or female, struggles to learn a sport or a science if they did not grow up that way. The difference is that it is much more rare for a man to reach adulthood without athletic experience.

3. Would it be appropriate for your coworkers or boss to have the image from those socks posted on the wall in your office? NO, it is not. So why should I have to deal with the image on thousands people at my job? In any place of business with an HR department this would be suitable grounds for dismissal. Interbike is a place of business. For the vast majority of attendees this convention is the culmination of a year of hard work, filled with 5 days of constant meetings and business deals that then drive the next twelve months of work. People look for new jobs here, sign athlete sponsorship contracts and develop OEM programs that drive millions of dollars of product purchases between businesses. I do not want to attend business meetings with people wearing pictures of naked women. Particularly in an industry where I have spent 22 years seeking parity and where talented women athletes struggle to get sponsorship dollars if they aren't traditionally marketable, i.e. "hot" or refuse to participate in pin-up shoots. There are thousands of papers that discuss why women aren't at the director level in most careers - it isn't because "they aren't biologically suited to it". There is a place in this world for sex and sexy imagery. It's not in my office. Buy some sexy socks and wear them on the trail - I don't care. Don't bring them to work.

3. There is an argument that others have made that says we should be accepting of the images "because we are in Vegas". This is also garbage. The show takes place in Vegas, not because the majority of people doing real business there want it to take place there, but because a. the flights and hotels are cheap and plentiful, b. the company running the show has a multi-year contract with the convention hall that makes it fiscally appealing, c. transportation on the ground is easy. If these three conditions could be found elsewhere the show would move. There have been concerted efforts to get the show out of Vegas, to a more bike friendly city (Denver, SLC, Anaheim), but so far, the money and logistics don't work. I look forward to moving the show out of Vegas to a location where the wasted attendees at Cross Vegas don't throw stripper cards and scream obscenities at the pro women when they race (one of the ugliest things I have ever witnessed in this industry, but they don't represent all men, right, and because they were drunk, they didn't really mean it, right?).

3. The argument that these socks "don't represent all women" is a classic. Just the sl*tty ones, right? Those of us who are "good girls" when should just be quiet when our business associates walk up with the sock in our booth and start laughing and joking about "giving the socks a ride", because obviously, it doesn't apply to us and it isn't in anyway setting the tone for the subsequent meeting, right?

4. Not thinking when you say something racist doesn't make the act not racist. Not thinking when you make a pair of naked socks for distribution to the largest gathering of bike industry professionals in North America doesn't make you not misogynist. You might not have realized you are, but you still are. Intent by the manufacturer is not the issue.



Trailrider92 said:


> This topic, along with many of the other topics related to sexism that come up on this thread rather frequently, always make me realize that there are both sides to the story. As a chick who shreds, my knee-jerk reaction is to be pissed, because of all the aforementioned reasons (it's sexist, it's objectifying women, blady-dee-blah). I agree with you ladies on a lot of this, I really do, but since that horse has been beat dead, let me explain why I also..well, kind of disagree as well. And I mean this only to be thought-provoking, so please don't come at me with "don't feel the troll" signs. The fact of the matter is, I don't really know how I feel about this-these are just my thoughts.
> 
> First, these socks (along with any sexualized images of women in marketing), do not apply to ALL women (duhh). This argument of "it's showing women-so it's offensive to all women" is, honestly, pretty sexist in itself IMO. If you see these socks with women in thongs, and then get offended by it, it's because you somehow think that representation of women somehow represents you. These aren't representative of all women, and they're not trying to be. I wouldn't let the image of scantily clad women selling sex apply to me anymore than I would let the image of a ballerina selling ballet slippers (okay bad example), apply to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trailrider92 (Nov 13, 2012)

chuky said:


> Dear "token chick",
> 
> Please check your internalized misogyny.
> 
> ...


Interesting, thank you for the well-thought out response. As I said in my post, I do not have a concrete opinion on this matter; rather I'm trying to decipher my own conflicting opinions on this. Just trying to play devil's advocate, because I think there is a lot of grey area on this subject.

1. It would be interesting to see if there have been any actual studies done on this. Although the argument may be identical, the validity of these arguments could be different, since the "STEM field" and "action sports" domains are totally different. Yes, I don't think women and or/minorities are any more biologically disinclined to pursue STEM fields than white men. However, we're not talking about STEM fields, we're talking about the tendency to engage in high-risk activity, where I'm just saying it's POSSIBLE (again, I'm not saying it's true or not, I'm just simply postulating based on my own observations) that biological differences could make one gender more inclined to engage in high risk/adrenaline type sports than the other. Trust me, I'm not saying I like the sound of that, after-all, I know that I (along with probably most of the women here) would clearly be an exception to this. But I don't feel like I have to be so PC that I can't acknowledge that less testosterone and a maternal self-preservation instinct wouldn't come into play in the inclination to pursue this sort of thing. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, again, not saying for sure. I'm not a biopsychologist.

2 (I'm assuming you meant 2 here). That is a good point. I agree that it is unprofessional, and from that point of view I think it is ridiculous that they would include the socks in their gift bags. There is a time and place for it, and that certainly isn't in a business setting. From the perspective of someone who has never been to Interbike, I wasn't thinking of it as a business setting, as I was thinking of it more as a festival type setting. Taking that into consideration, I agree with you, that's not the appropriate place for sexual imagery.

3. Interesting! I see your point, but I am still having a difficult time agreeing with you. I really think it doesn't apply to me. Truly. Now if I were a stripper, it'd be a different story, but since I'm not, why should I be offended?

4. Even more interesting. I guess to me, intent does matter more than anything. By definition, a misogynist is someone who has feelings of dislike or prejudice towards women. I don't think the people who decided to put these socks felt any of those things towards women. Then again how would I know?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Trailrider92 said:


> 4. Even more interesting. I guess to me, intent does matter more than anything. By definition, a misogynist is someone who has feelings of dislike or prejudice towards women. I don't think the people who decided to put these socks felt any of those things towards women. Then again how would I know?


fwiw, intent can be inferred and in this case, their reaction of indifference to the outcry display their belief that using women's sexuality is okay to market their brand. It's crude and some of the language used of "riding the socks" is demeaning and conveys an oppressive power grab over women. It's not even subtle.


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

Trailrider92 said:


> 1. It would be interesting to see if there have been any actual studies done on this. Although the argument may be identical, the validity of these arguments could be different, since the "STEM field" and "action sports" domains are totally different. Yes, I don't think women and or/minorities are any more biologically disinclined to pursue STEM fields than white men. However, we're not talking about STEM fields, we're talking about the tendency to engage in high-risk activity, where I'm just saying it's POSSIBLE (again, I'm not saying it's true or not, I'm just simply postulating based on my own observations) that biological differences could make one gender more inclined to engage in high risk/adrenaline type sports than the other. Trust me, I'm not saying I like the sound of that, after-all, I know that I (along with probably most of the women here) would clearly be an exception to this. But I don't feel like I have to be so PC that I can't acknowledge that less testosterone and a maternal self-preservation instinct wouldn't come into play in the inclination to pursue this sort of thing. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, again, not saying for sure. I'm not a biopsychologist.


Actually it's not any different. The "biology" argument has long been used to justify lack of participation in STEM fields by women and minorities. According to the old arguments, women and minorities are: too passionate, ruled by emotion, incapable of working with cold hard data, lacking the highly developed logical portions of the brain needed for analysis and likely to cry. In every case where women have been given the opportunity to participate, they have excelled.

As far as studies for women's participation in sports as related to opportunity, you don't need to be a "biopsychologist" to google - look no further than our friend, Title IX:

Title IX Impact on female athletics

_"In 1971, fewer than 295,000 girls participated in high school varsity athletics, accounting for just 7 percent of all varsity athletes; in 2001, that number leaped to 2.8 million, or 41.5 percent of all varsity athletes, according to the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. In 1966, 16,000 females competed in intercollegiate athletics. By 2001, that number jumped to more than 150,000, accounting for 43 percent of all college athletes. In addition, a 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women's collegiate sports had grown to 9,101 teams, or 8.65 per school. The five most frequently offered college sports for women are, in order: (1) basketball, 98.8% of schools have a team, (2) volleyball, 95.7%, (3) soccer, 92.0%, (4) cross country, 90.8%, and (5) softball, 89.2%. Since 1972, women have also competed in the traditional male sports of wrestling, weightlifting, rugby, and boxing. Parents have begun to watch their daughters on the playing fields, courts, and on television. A recent article in the New York Times found that there are lasting benefits for women from Title IX: participation in sports increased education as well as employment opportunities for girls. Furthermore, the athletic participation by girls and women spurred by Title IX was associated with lower obesity rates. No other public health program can claim similar success."_

The success of federally mandated equality in sports funding is a perfect example of opportunity vs biology arguments. When the programs were implemented, women responded in droves. Prior to having the opportunity, they didn't participate. People used the exact same arguments you use in your original post to justify it. Don't argue that somehow MTB is more extreme than soccer or volleyball - we are just conditioned to think of those types of sports as acceptable for women, probably because of their long term placement within the Title IX program.

Finally, regarding the "token chick" thing. I get it. I used to take pride in it myself. I loved it when guys would invite me on "guy's rides" because "I could hang" and "I was cool" or "I wasn't like a regular chick". I really bought into it. I was hard on other women who didn't strive for the same status. It was pretty awful of me and as I look back I realize I was hard on riders who just wanted to enjoy their time in the woods, who might have been achieving at the highest level that they had ever achieved athletically and that I didn't know their stories or how opportunity had affected their ability to participate in the sport. I was participating in and perpetuating misogyny because I was told I was one of the "good ones". Frankly, I think I was probably a jerk to women in these forums, too, for the same reasons. "Token chick" isn't a compliment any more than "token minority" is.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

Stripes said:


> Chuky: thank you so much for your insights. I can't tell you how refreshing this is to hear, because at this point, we no longer need a seat at the table.. *we need our own equal tables*.


Mehhh .... sounds a little too Plessy v. Ferguson ...


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

Stripes said:


> While we may not be the biggest market, we are the biggest growing market AFAIK.


The women's bike market is growing at 3x the rate the men's market is, based on my most recent set of stats.


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

I actually agree. Separate isn't equal, never has been.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

But I get the impulse, Stripes, for sure. It's similar to the differing philosophies of liberal feminism vs. radical feminism. The former is trying to work within a certain set of societal guidelines that may never result in true equality; the latter is more like, "Let's flip the ****ing table and make a new and better one."


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Stripes said:


> Chuky and Girlonbike win the Internet today.
> 
> I will not spend money on anything from SOS or any other company that treats women as objects. I get enough of it working in tech, and I won't deal with it for my fun stuff in my spare time either.


Thanks Stripes! That means a lot because this subject is important to me. Also, I agree regarding putting your money with the companies that you're aligned with from a philosophical point of view. I feel lucky that I have the ability to do so. As for the tech industry, I feel for you. It's a real brofest.



Deep Thought said:


> Mehhh .... sounds a little too Plessy v. Ferguson ...





chuky said:


> I actually agree. Separate isn't equal, never has been.


Interesting segue. For those that may not know, Plessy v. Ferguson was an 1896 US Supreme Court case that held that racial segregation was constitutional and this case was used to justify laws that discriminated against people of color for over half a century. It resulted in the separate but equal doctrine which lasted until 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education which overturned Plessy. It took years and plenty more decisions to clarify the implementation of desegregation of America's public school systems but that's the quick and dirty lowdown about how separate is not equal.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

OK, guy chiming in here. So, nobody is going to buy anything from SOS. What bike companies that are out there do have a good track record with supporting women? That I can support and spend my $ with? Internet venting/rants are a start, $ talks.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

leeboh said:


> OK, guy chiming in here. So, nobody is going to buy anything from SOS. What bike companies that are out there do have a good track record with supporting women? That I can support and spend my $ with? Internet venting/rants are a start, $ talks.


Handlebar Mustache Apparel - Cycling Apparel

^ one of my personal faves. They're also a CO company, so local for me, have stylish gear, and are nice, real people who are active members of the cycling community. They are really supportive sponsors of a few local pro women and are involved with the Amy D. Foundation.

ETA: I kind of assumed that you meant sock companies.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I'd start with Giant - they have the whole Liv division (new company maybe?) that's doing a huge amount of things in the women's biking community with Liv events and ambassadors, plus bike that are pushing the envelope with what women's bikes can be. 
Caveat, I ride a liv and my ladies group that I co host with a Liv Ambassador is sponsored by our local Giant/Liv dealer. 

It's a win win when it's done right. Guy from lbs above thanked me the other day; our women's group has sold 30+ mountain bikes for them this summer.


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

formica said:


> I'd start with Giant - they have the whole Liv division (new company maybe?) that's doing a huge amount of things in the women's biking community with Liv events and ambassadors, plus bike that are pushing the envelope with what women's bikes can be.
> Caveat, I ride a liv and my ladies group that I co host with a Liv Ambassador is sponsored by our local Giant/Liv dealer.
> 
> It's a win win when it's done right. Guy from lbs above thanked me the other day; our women's group has sold 30+ mountain bikes for them this summer.


Yay! I loved their demo event and got such a good vibe. And based on some changes they've made, they're actually LISTENING to what women want.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

littlebird said:


> Handlebar Mustache Apparel - Cycling Apparel
> 
> ^ one of my personal faves. They're also a CO company, so local for me, have stylish gear, and are nice, real people who are active members of the cycling community. They are really supportive sponsors of a few local pro women and are involved with the Amy D. Foundation.
> 
> ETA: I kind of assumed that you meant sock companies.


I meant mt bike companies in general. I believe Giant has a woman president/CEO.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Okay, gotcha. 

I guess here's part of my purchasing process. 

1. What are the pro women who I really admire riding/wearing/repping? Which companies have long supported women's pro teams? (And I also make it a point, if I end up buying one of these products, to let the company know which pro I saw repping their products and led me to take a closer look.)
2. Do any of those companies make the product I am looking for? 
3. How does this company represent women in their advertising? (...if at all?)


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

leeboh, I think you raise a great point and I'm curious what people say. It would probably be great to start a separate thread about this subject so it's not buried in page 5.

As important as targeting women as customers, my feelings are women-friendly corporate environments are also important. I know this mostly applies to companies with 50 or more employees but some examples would be policies on paid maternity and family leave as well as the number of women in the workplace and their paths to career success. I don't personally don't know of policies and HR stats in the bicycle industry so I hope others can chime in but I have some friends at Giro and Specialized, UBI, etc. so I could ask them.

I'm afraid my passion lies with small American/Canadian framebuilders and I'm mostly interested in vintage and I don't really buy disposables so I'm kind of not the target audience. Personally, I've found most small framebuilders are really great with women and there's also a woman that builds frames in Portland, Ore.: *Sweetpea Bicycles*. Sweetpea Bicycles | This is the bike that will love you back.

That's all I have! Embarrassing.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

girlonbike said:


> leeboh, I think you raise a great point and I'm curious what people say. It would probably be great to start a separate thread about this subject so it's not buried in page 5.


you have mod powers, can you do that? thanks!!


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Stripes it wasn't so long ago 2012 that Specialized had an ad that has since made the "top 5 marketing fails" re marketing/women/cycling. Let's hope they learned something back then.

Team Estrogen is a retailer that only women's cycle gear, they don't make their own.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

petey15 said:


> Yay! I loved their demo event and got such a good vibe. And based on some changes they've made, they're actually LISTENING to what women want.


There have been some pretty cool events. Recently there was Solidarity Ride to show support for Afghan women.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Stripes said:


> Most of the bigger companies like Trek and Spesh have both women's bikes and support women riders, but I'm not sure of their overall stance. They haven't done anything to offend me from that standpoint.


I'm a huge Trek fan; just sold one and have another on the way. But there are lots of reasons for that, not just how they represent women and approach us as a market.

Spesh has done too many things that put a bad taste in my mouth... The stupid ad Formica mentioned is one, suing that Canadian LBS is another.


----------



## laine (Oct 4, 2012)

Can I just say that I love the turn this thread has taken? It would be great to source a list of women-friendly companies that we could turn to when we need to buy something. 

My add: I know it's not a bike-specific company, but REI is high on my list for senior women in leadership and lots o' female employees (and clothing gear).

-laine


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Comments from OIWC
An Industry Imagined...Sockgate As A Turning Point - Outdoor Industries Women's Coalition


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Not sock or bike related...

The 2016 Pirelli Calendar May Signal a Cultural Shift
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/f...=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

mtbxplorer said:


> Not sock or bike related...
> 
> The 2016 Pirelli Calendar May Signal a Cultural Shift
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/f...ion=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article


Love that. It reminds me of the intro to Missrepresentation... however and maybe call me a rube for missing something she accomplished ...but when Yoko showed up it bothered me. I am in marketing and if I were directing a calendar like that, she would not me on my "top 12 list".


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

laine said:


> Can I just say that I love the turn this thread has taken? It would be great to source a list of women-friendly companies that we could turn to when we need to buy something.-laine


Juliana Furtado
Juliana Bicycles

From the Juli's Story section of her website:



> I retired [from racing] in 1997, ready to take on the next stage in my life. Looking around, I felt women weren't being properly represented in the mountain bike market place and made it my goal to offer women the best performing, most comfortable, and most beautiful mountain bikes possible.
> 
> In 1999, we launched the Juliana. It was the first ever women-specific mountain bike, designed with help from my friends at Santa Cruz Bicycles.
> 
> ...


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

Here we go again...
Why 661's Sexist Marketing Image is Totally Enraging - Total Women's Cycling
Love the points that were made in the article like where is the mud, sweat and shin gouges? And where is the bike? And um, her kit?


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

^ Hell yeah! Nice, Stripes!


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

661 did the right thing and took down the ad... the next day. The people have spoken


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

petey15 said:


> here we go again...
> why 661's sexist marketing image is totally enraging - total women's cycling
> love the points that were made in the article like where is the mud, sweat and shin gouges? And where is the bike? And um, her kit?


Totally.



stripes said:


> i'm a much better model for 661 and i look better in their knee pads.


Yessssss.


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

Stripes said:


> I'm a much better model for 661 and I look better in their knee pads.





mtbxplorer said:


> Totally.
> 
> Yessssss.


winning!


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 25, 2009)

Since a lot of (mostly dudes, but occasionally women, also) don't understand why stuff like the 661 ad is offensive, my JRA co-host and I have been scheming ideas for "is it sexist?" We basically ask, "If you replace the person in the ad with a differently gendered person, does it make the target audience uncomfortable? Does is make the ad less sexy and more silly/ridiculous/weird?"

So, we took this pic (link goes to my Instagram since the pics are slightly NSFW):

__
http://instagr.am/p/BAjHKyyqfTg/


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

Andrea138 said:


> Since a lot of (mostly dudes, but occasionally women, also) don't understand why stuff like the 661 ad is offensive, my JRA co-host and I have been scheming ideas for "is it sexist?" We basically ask, "If you replace the person in the ad with a differently gendered person, does it make the target audience uncomfortable? Does is make the ad less sexy and more silly/ridiculous/weird?"
> 
> So, we took this pic (link goes to my Instagram since the pics are slightly NSFW):
> 
> ...


Funny I just saw that post and thought of this one so I copied the photo to post here. Love it. 

*edit* Removed image as it may be considered inappropriate.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Andrea, that was you? Good job. I was skiing with about ten bike industry folks and lady racers..... That add was a big topic of conversation! With your photo of course.


----------



## petey15 (Sep 1, 2006)

Andrea138 said:


> Since a lot of (mostly dudes, but occasionally women, also) don't understand why stuff like the 661 ad is offensive, my JRA co-host and I have been scheming ideas for "is it sexist?" We basically ask, "If you replace the person in the ad with a differently gendered person, does it make the target audience uncomfortable? Does is make the ad less sexy and more silly/ridiculous/weird?"
> 
> So, we took this pic (link goes to my Instagram since the pics are slightly NSFW):
> 
> ...


Ha ha ha - awesome!


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

formica said:


> Andrea, that was you? Good job. I was skiing with about ten bike industry folks and lady racers..... That add was a big topic of conversation! With your photo of course.


Reminiscent of 2011's men-ups - always good to revisit: Rion Sabean Photography - Men-Ups!


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

JCWages said:


> Funny I just saw that post and thought of this one so I copied the photo to post here. Love it.
> 
> *edit* Removed image as it may be considered inappropriate.


With some of the boobage and female ass cleavage that appear elsewhere "here" I can't image that would be inappropriate, except for the guys that are going to say they are grossed out by the guy part.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Andrea138 said:


> Since a lot of (mostly dudes, but occasionally women, also) don't understand why stuff like the 661 ad is offensive, my JRA co-host and I have been scheming ideas for "is it sexist?" We basically ask, "If you replace the person in the ad with a differently gendered person, does it make the target audience uncomfortable? Does is make the ad less sexy and more silly/ridiculous/weird?"
> 
> So, we took this pic (link goes to my Instagram since the pics are slightly NSFW):
> 
> ...


YESSS! This is awesome. Thanks Andrea.

That's always my litmus test for sexism... Ask yourself, "Do men ever have to put up with this sh*t??"


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

speaking of, MTB4her is doing a survey....
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1hjL8Z7l3dmhpU_gLen4hw7itcD7GylUpJldVC-rZJqc/viewform?c=0&w=1


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

formica said:


> With some of the boobage and female ass cleavage that appear elsewhere "here" I can't image that would be inappropriate, except for the guys that are going to say they are grossed out by the guy part.


True. I just didn't want to perpetuate the problem.


----------



## Rae6503 (Jun 30, 2009)

Andrea138 said:


> Since a lot of (mostly dudes, but occasionally women, also) don't understand why stuff like the 661 ad is offensive, my JRA co-host and I have been scheming ideas for "is it sexist?" We basically ask, "If you replace the person in the ad with a differently gendered person, does it make the target audience uncomfortable? Does is make the ad less sexy and more silly/ridiculous/weird?"
> 
> So, we took this pic (link goes to my Instagram since the pics are slightly NSFW):
> 
> ...


This is awesome

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 25, 2009)

formica said:


> Andrea, that was you? Good job. I was skiing with about ten bike industry folks and lady racers..... That add was a big topic of conversation! With your photo of course.


Yep. Taken in my living room. We made jokes that he should "hold" the pad with no hands, but no one would volunteer to fluff.


----------



## deanna (Jan 15, 2004)

Not really bike related... but it is on topic. It was posted on George Takei's FB page: Video Calls Out Sexism In Advertising By Showcasing Ads That Objectify Women


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

formica said:


> speaking of, MTB4her is doing a survey....
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1hjL8Z7l3dmhpU_gLen4hw7itcD7GylUpJldVC-rZJqc/viewform?c=0&w=1


This survey is pretty repetitive - it's been shown over and over again via studies conducted by very reputable researchers that this kind of advertising does not increase sales, and in many cases hurts sales.

_"The Ohio State University professor who co-authored the study explained that sex is distracting to the average consumer and raunchy ads "backfire by impairing memory, attitudes and buying intentions for advertised products".​_
Sex doesn?t sell ? and you?d be surprised what does | Arwa Mahdawi | Opinion | The Guardian


----------

