Surly speaks out against sexism in industry

[kevinvc]

For a long time, many people's perception of the bike industry is one of a misogynistic good ol' boys club where sex sells and women are little more than eye candy, particularly when it comes to marketing. In the last week there have been a couple of eyebrow raising company acts that have heightened that perception. Last weekend, Chrome Industries did a campaign in New York City with topless models walking around handing out promo material. They posted photos to promote this campaign. This week at Interbike, the swag bag for attendees included a pair of socks with an image of two women in bikinis.

Both of these may be fairly innocuous on their own, but they seem completely tone deaf. Surly's Marketing Manager posted a very direct response (http://surlybikes.com/blog) on the company's blog about this. She gives examples of shockingly sexist behavior that she claims she has experienced within the industry and calls out both Chrome and Interbike in a really direct manner. Personally, I think it makes for a very insightful read and hope it will encourage others to think about the cumulative effects of an industry that claims to want to increase female participation but continues to objectify this same audience.

Maybe I'm being an overly PC SJW, but I'm glad she wrote this and it raises my opinion of Surly as a company.

[David Kirk]

I've been in the business in some way now for the past 36 years and it's been the same for all that time. Many of the guys say it's just the girls being overly sensitive and that it's all in fun......and then those same dumb assed guys wonder why they need to work so hard to sell bikes to woman.

Dumb is as dumb does.

dave

[witcombusa]

For a long time, many people's perception of the bike industry is one of a misogynistic good ol' boys club where sex sells and women are little more than eye candy, particularly when it comes to marketing. In the last week there have been a couple of eyebrow raising company acts that have heightened that perception. Last weekend, Chrome Industries did a campaign in New York City with topless models walking around handing out promo material. They posted photos to promote this campaign. This week at Interbike, the swag bag for attendees included a pair of socks with an image of two women in bikinis.

Both of these may be fairly innocuous on their own, but they seem completely tone deaf. Surly's Marketing Manager posted a very direct response (http://surlybikes.com/blog) on the company's blog about this. She gives examples of shockingly sexist behavior that she claims she has experienced within the industry and calls out both Chrome and Interbike in a really direct manner. Personally, I think it makes for a very insightful read and hope it will encourage others to think about the cumulative effects of an industry that claims to want to increase female participation but continues to objectify this same audience.

Maybe I'm being an overly PC SJW, but I'm glad she wrote this and it raises my opinion of Surly as a company.


Really? Come on.

There is NOTHING worse than PC anything. :no:

[nooneline]

Really? Come on.

There is NOTHING worse than PC anything. :no:

really?

I have been sexually assaulted after a business dinner because the Manager I was meeting with had such a good time he said.

When I confronted a boss about why I was left out of meetings he held with my male peers, I was told I was invited to the next one and it was in his hot tub.

I was told my boss would prefer I be more motherly, bake cookies and make sure the printer paper was full.


Those working conditions, and cultural conditions, are worse.

[FlashUNC]

Its mind bogglingly stupid and tone deaf.

But the industry seems to excel at shooting itself in the foot.

[54ny77]

I can't stand the PC police because it often travels to the absurd....but this is pretty shocking, downright disgusting. This has nothing to do with being PC. The people she's referring to should've been outed. If this woman was my wife or girlfriend I'd go to the ends of the earth to make the perpetrator of these events pay in one way or the other.

------------------

"I have personally experienced many issues that have made my work environment a struggle to succeed in. I have and will continue to push though these instances and be successful in spite of them. I hope to one day be able to dedicate my work life energy solely to pursuing my professional dreams and goals and not have to waste so much on climbing back up when I am knocked down for nothing more than being born a woman.

What could be so bad you ask?

I have been sexually assaulted after a business dinner because the Manager I was meeting with had such a good time he said.

When I confronted a boss about why I was left out of meetings he held with my male peers, I was told I was invited to the next one and it was in his hot tub.

I was told my boss would prefer I be more motherly, bake cookies and make sure the printer paper was full.

I have been told Surly should be "given ���� for sending two girls" to a cycling event. These girls were myself, Marketing Manager with Surly and Amy Kippley, Product Manager with Surly. Not that titles matter. It just shows no matter how you promote and hire women the environment needs to change in order to really have an impact.

I was told I should have to register twice, once for each breast, for a recent cycling event I was attending as Marketing Manager for Surly.

I could go on and on. But I hope it's not necessary. I hope this sheds some light on why things like the images put out by Chrome and Interbike and many other companies are in fact harmful and create an environment where people feel it's okay to say and do these things to women in the industry.

I am fortunate to work with a group of men that do not say these things to me. They do not make me feel any less for being a women. Surly supports women. I truly believe this. We have and will make mistakes. All I can say is we will own these mistakes and learn from them. I hope others can say the same. Let's make change happen."

[makoti]

Really? Come on.

There is NOTHING worse than PC anything. :no:

The ���� she says she put up with is.

[kevinvc]

I was right on the verge of buying a pair of Chrome shoes. I have now decided against them and sent an email to the company explaining my decision. I know my $100 isn't going to make a bit of difference to them, but voting with my wallet is about all I can do.

"PC" is often used as a derogatory term meaning "not being allowed to act like a rude jackass without getting called out on it".

[ftf]

"PC" is often used as a derogatory term meaning "not being allowed to act like a rude jackass without getting called out on it".

Bingo, only white males really complain about having to be PC, wonder why that is.

[dpk501]

Good post and good on surly! here's Chrome's reply:

http://chromeindustries.com/nycpromo

Seems kind of like a cop out response on their part.


For a long time, many people's perception of the bike industry is one of a misogynistic good ol' boys club where sex sells and women are little more than eye candy, particularly when it comes to marketing. In the last week there have been a couple of eyebrow raising company acts that have heightened that perception. Last weekend, Chrome Industries did a campaign in New York City with topless models walking around handing out promo material. They posted photos to promote this campaign. This week at Interbike, the swag bag for attendees included a pair of socks with an image of two women in bikinis.

Both of these may be fairly innocuous on their own, but they seem completely tone deaf. Surly's Marketing Manager posted a very direct response (http://surlybikes.com/blog) on the company's blog about this. She gives examples of shockingly sexist behavior that she claims she has experienced within the industry and calls out both Chrome and Interbike in a really direct manner. Personally, I think it makes for a very insightful read and hope it will encourage others to think about the cumulative effects of an industry that claims to want to increase female participation but continues to objectify this same audience.

Maybe I'm being an overly PC SJW, but I'm glad she wrote this and it raises my opinion of Surly as a company.

[kevinvc]

Good post and good on surly! here's Chrome's reply:

http://chromeindustries.com/nycpromo

Seems kind of like a cop out response on their part.

Chrome with the standard "I'm sorry if anyone was offended", which is not the same as actually admitting their campaign was inherently offensive. But at least they're wanting to "continue a dialogue". :rolleyes:

I really like Elly Blue's "Is this thing sexist (http://takingthelane.com/2012/09/17/is-this-thing-sexist-introducing-the-bike-test/)?" criteria for evaluating images of women in cycling:

1. Are women present or represented at all?
2. Are the women presented as active subjects rather than passive objects?
3. If the gender were reversed, would the meaning stay more or less unchanged? (Or would the image become hilarious?)

[CunegoFan]

Bingo, only white males really complain about having to be PC, wonder why that is.

Oh, the irony. Thread about sexism against women devolves into sexism against men with a hefty dollop of racism as well.

[makoti]

"PC" is often used as a derogatory term meaning "not being allowed to act like a rude jackass without getting called out on it".

HA! So true...

[Tandem Rider]

I just read this and as a father of a teenage girl who will probably run into this at some point, I'm steaming. First thoughts, in my mind, understanding there are exceptions on both sides.

1. I feel a lot better about Mrs TR buying a Surly to commute on.

2. ���?? I'm in a very male dominated field and I haven't heard things like this for over 25 years. I thought cycling would be ahead of where we are, we like to portray ourselves as progressive and intelligent, this is the behavior of a crass cretin. Please, cycling, try to match your behavior to your "image".

3. Is this somehow interconnected to the attitudes about pretty girls/ornaments on podiums? Just wondering out loud...

[93legendti]

https://www.facebook.com/freethenipple

[makoti]

https://www.facebook.com/freethenipple

Did you have a point? Or just like nipples?

[93legendti]

Did you have a point? Or just like nipples?

I am trying to decide if nipples are good or bad. One group of women wants them displayed all the time. Another doesn't.

How can the nipple be free if it can't be in an ad?

If women think it's sexist not to be able to walk around topless, how can it be sexist to use topless women to sell a product? Seems like the free the nipple crowd would think the ad is flattering.

Or, are the "the chrome ad is sexist" crowd offended by the free the nipple crowd?

So confusing with the "I am offended" culture that exists.



"Chrome Industries did a campaign in New York City with topless models walking around handing out promo material. They posted photos to promote this campaign. This week at Interbike, the swag bag for attendees included a pair of socks with an image of two women in bikinis."

[witcombusa]

really?




Yup. Anyone that recites the doctrine according to what the current political agenda might happen to be is a fool. Make up your own mind. Piss some people off, have your own opinions. You don't have to make, or even try to keep everyone happy.

And it's not the 'bike industry', it's everywhere. If she doesn't like the way her boss, or anyone else for that matter is treating her, she should start with telling him not to. Then go up the chain where it will most likely fall on deaf ears. This crap works both ways. Some women exploit themselves and work 'the system' to the max.

[mg2ride]

....If this woman was my wife or girlfriend I'd go to the ends of the earth to make the perpetrator of these events pay....


Why? Would your wife or girlfriend not be able to take care of themselves?

Men wanting to protect woman from sexist behavior is irony at it's best.

[makoti]

I am trying to decide if nipples are good or bad. One group of women wants them displayed all the time. Another doesn't.

How can the nipple be free if it can't be in an ad?

If women think it's sexist not to be able to walk around topless, how can it be sexist to use topless women to sell a product? Seems like the free the nipple crowd would think the ad is flattering.

Or, are the "the chrome ad is sexist" crowd offended by the free the nipple crowd?

So confusing with the "I am offended" culture that exists.


I'm thinking your blinders may be a bit tight on your head if you really can't see a difference in those situations.

[93legendti]

I'm thinking your blinders may be a bit tight on your head if you really can't see a difference in those situations.

Hmmm, if you need to attack rather than explain your point, the discussion is over. Sorry you couldn't articulate a difference and you were stymied by the hypocrisy between the ad and the free the nipple campaign.

But hey, forget the nipple. Hugs are more sexist:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/14/helen-mirren-sexism-men-women_n_8132770.html




"Chrome Industries did a campaign in New York City with topless models walking around handing out promo material. They posted photos to promote this campaign. This week at Interbike, the swag bag for attendees included a pair of socks with an image of two women in bikinis."

[velomonkey]

If you're gonna judge a 20 year old company on picture from a singular event than Chrome is guilty of sexism.

If you step back and look at their intention and their history you're gonna be hard pressed to find much fault with Chrome.

The ad itself was male and female models walking around NYC during fashion week handing out flyers about Chrome. It was meant in jest to make fun of high-fashion. It was irony. You might not get it, you might not think it's funny, but that was the intention.

Chrome as a company makes a superior product. If some wall street bean counter came into the company they would have them outsource manufacturing and use inferior material. Chrome manufactures most of their products in the US and the quality is far, far superior to most products including cycling products. In short, their stuff lasts.

I've actually only met woman at Chrome - at both their inter bike booth and their NYC store. The people I met were smart, knew the product, really freaking cool and a blast to talk to. The were in positions of power - the woman at the NYC store was the manager at the store and started at Chrome sewing bags.

In short, I think people need to layoff Chrome and more companies should do what Chrome does. Sure this incident might not have been the best idea, but over their history, their corp culture, their support of woman racers and other areas Chrome is in no way a sexist company.

[Vinci]

This makes the Surly "Nice Rack" a bit of an ironic name choice.

[rugbysecondrow]

This isn't PC at all, this is just being an asshole and, even worse, being unprofessional. If the people we black, jewish, senior citizens, or 20 somethings, it would be just as dickish to make analogous comments.

Sexual assault, sexual comments, demeaning...it just is totally uncalled for an unprofessional.

I am fine with selling goods, what clothing company doesn't use sex to sell clothes, but there is a line between marketing and how you treat people.

I work in a male dominated field, as does my wife, and I am fortunate to not see stuff like this.

I can't stand the PC police because it often travels to the absurd....but this is pretty shocking, downright disgusting. This has nothing to do with being PC. The people she's referring to should've been outed. If this woman was my wife or girlfriend I'd go to the ends of the earth to make the perpetrator of these events pay in one way or the other.

------------------

"I have personally experienced many issues that have made my work environment a struggle to succeed in. I have and will continue to push though these instances and be successful in spite of them. I hope to one day be able to dedicate my work life energy solely to pursuing my professional dreams and goals and not have to waste so much on climbing back up when I am knocked down for nothing more than being born a woman.

What could be so bad you ask?

I have been sexually assaulted after a business dinner because the Manager I was meeting with had such a good time he said.

When I confronted a boss about why I was left out of meetings he held with my male peers, I was told I was invited to the next one and it was in his hot tub.

I was told my boss would prefer I be more motherly, bake cookies and make sure the printer paper was full.

I have been told Surly should be "given ｷｷｷｷ for sending two girls" to a cycling event. These girls were myself, Marketing Manager with Surly and Amy Kippley, Product Manager with Surly. Not that titles matter. It just shows no matter how you promote and hire women the environment needs to change in order to really have an impact.

I was told I should have to register twice, once for each breast, for a recent cycling event I was attending as Marketing Manager for Surly.

I could go on and on. But I hope it's not necessary. I hope this sheds some light on why things like the images put out by Chrome and Interbike and many other companies are in fact harmful and create an environment where people feel it's okay to say and do these things to women in the industry.

I am fortunate to work with a group of men that do not say these things to me. They do not make me feel any less for being a women. Surly supports women. I truly believe this. We have and will make mistakes. All I can say is we will own these mistakes and learn from them. I hope others can say the same. Let's make change happen."

[54ny77]

methinks you might hop off your high assumption horse a moment.

i'm talking about being supportive in whatever way i can. that could mean any number of things, including emotional support, litigation, etc.

my wife wouldn't know what to do in a litigious situation. i happen to be very familiar with that arena.

just as if i wouldn't know what to do in the myriad of professional situations that she deals with every day, and in which i might be challenged, she'd help me.



Why? Would your wife or girlfriend not be able to take care of themselves?

Men wanting to protect woman from sexist behavior is irony at it's best.

[rugbysecondrow]

methinks you might hop off your high assumption horse a moment.

i'm talking about being supportive in whatever way i can. that could mean any number of things, including emotional support, litigation, etc.

my wife wouldn't know what to do in a litigious situation. i happen to be very familiar with that arena.

just as if i wouldn't know what to do in the myriad of professional situations that she deals with every day, and in which i might be challenged, she'd help me.

Agreed. Many people are abuse, in coercive situations (workplace, domestic etc) and it is hard for them to work through the problem on their own. Being a supportive, helpful spouse/partner is a good thing.

[oldpotatoe]

If you're gonna judge a 20 year old company on picture from a singular event than Chrome is guilty of sexism.

If you step back and look at their intention and their history you're gonna be hard pressed to find much fault with Chrome.

The ad itself was male and female models walking around NYC during fashion week handing out flyers about Chrome. It was meant in jest to make fun of high-fashion. It was irony. You might not get it, you might not think it's funny, but that was the intention.

Chrome as a company makes a superior product. If some wall street bean counter came into the company they would have them outsource manufacturing and use inferior material. Chrome manufactures most of their products in the US and the quality is far, far superior to most products including cycling products. In short, their stuff lasts.

I've actually only met woman at Chrome - at both their inter bike booth and their NYC store. The people I met were smart, knew the product, really freaking cool and a blast to talk to. The were in positions of power - the woman at the NYC store was the manager at the store and started at Chrome sewing bags.

In short, I think people need to layoff Chrome and more companies should do what Chrome does. Sure this incident might not have been the best idea, but over their history, their corp culture, their support of woman racers and other areas Chrome is in no way a sexist company.

Something I don't understand. You go to the beach...vast majority of women are in bikinis..why? They could wear shorts and a tshirt. Any day in the summer, walking around, you will see women with a dipping neckline t shirt, shirt, dress..many women at a party will wear fairly 'revealing' clothes BUT

...Not OK for a guy to 'objectify' but most women feel no problem, dressing with 'revealing' type clothes..I don't think these women are forced to dress like this, are they? Sorry, dum-ass male..

[bikingshearer]

Here is the e-mail I sent to Chrome in response to their solicitation of comments in the interest in an ongoing dialogue. It sums up my thoughts on this.

"I have now read your explanation/non-apologia concerning your Fashion Week promotion. It is clear to me that you folks either wildly over-thought or wildly under-thought the idea. I understand that this was meant as a tongue-in-cheek send-up of the overwrought Fashion Week uber-hype, but the bottom line is that you used bare tits - which have nothing to do with your products - to promote your business. In doing so, you did a disservice to women and to your brand.

"The disservice to women is obvious. I hope that needs no further explanation.

"The disservice to your brand comes because you have now equated yourselves with other products that have to resort to boobs to sell their product. Like fast-food burgers and mass-produced beer. Based on what I see of your product line, you are aiming a lot higher than that, both in terms of quality and social consciousness. You are trying to be better than that. This was a definite misstep in that effort.

"I will not join a boycott of your products (not that I am aware of one) or anything like that. But I do think you made a mistake. If it was a "one off" error in judgment (and every one of us has a few of those in our backgrounds, truth be told), it is not that big a deal. But if it reflects a true statement of your company culture, that is a bigger problem."

[ptourkin]

I am trying to decide if nipples are good or bad. One group of women wants them displayed all the time. Another doesn't.

How can the nipple be free if it can't be in an ad?

If women think it's sexist not to be able to walk around topless, how can it be sexist to use topless women to sell a product? Seems like the free the nipple crowd would think the ad is flattering.

Or, are the "the chrome ad is sexist" crowd offended by the free the nipple crowd?

So confusing with the "I am offended" culture that exists.



"Chrome Industries did a campaign in New York City with topless models walking around handing out promo material. They posted photos to promote this campaign. This week at Interbike, the swag bag for attendees included a pair of socks with an image of two women in bikinis."

One group wants the right to choose to go topless if they choose. The other doesn't want the appropriation of images for exploitative purposes. If you don't understand that, you don't want to.

This is the same discussion (among men) with the same people as last time (now that I've chimed in) and I think we all know where we stand. Good for Surly, though.

[93legendti]

Right. The question is why do the 2 different groups feel the way they do?

The 2 groups have opposite messages. One says the female nipple isn't sexual and is just like the male nipple. If it isn't sexual, it can't be exploitive. To quote Seinfeld, it becomes just a brown, circular protuberance.

The other group says the use of a female nipple is exploitive.

So, I understand.

Free The Nipple:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/free-the-nipple-trailer_n_6199422.html

"Women's freedom of bodily expression is limited by the FCC, MPAA, social media platforms and, ultimately, a culture that views nipple as inherently explicit. Of course, no body part is inherently anything, but society has this pesky habit of deciding for women how our bodies should be perceived.
The over-sexualization of women's bodies has resulted in a view of nipples as particularly salacious, whether women intend them to be seen that way or not. And beyond freedom of expression, the notion that women's breasts must be hidden has real consequences for women's wellbeing. For example, new mothers are inhibited from breastfeeding freely in public, lest they offend anybody. It is illegal for women to go topless in 35 states."



http://youtu.be/UhIMV3lu6Qg

[avalonracing]

Yup. Anyone that recites the doctrine according to what the current political agenda might happen to be is a fool. Make up your own mind. Piss some people off, have your own opinions. You don't have to make, or even try to keep everyone happy.


In this political climate it is becoming quite popular to use that argument when trying to justify one's racism, sexism and bigotry. It's shameful that people are but at least you know where they stand.

[kevinvc]

:hello:

This direct, clear, insightful and concise letter captures my sentiments exactly.

Here is the e-mail I sent to Chrome in response to their solicitation of comments in the interest in an ongoing dialogue. It sums up my thoughts on this.

"I have now read your explanation/non-apologia concerning your Fashion Week promotion. It is clear to me that you folks either wildly over-thought or wildly under-thought the idea. I understand that this was meant as a tongue-in-cheek send-up of the overwrought Fashion Week uber-hype, but the bottom line is that you used bare tits - which have nothing to do with your products - to promote your business. In doing so, you did a disservice to women and to your brand.

"The disservice to women is obvious. I hope that needs no further explanation.

"The disservice to your brand comes because you have now equated yourselves with other products that have to resort to boobs to sell their product. Like fast-food burgers and mass-produced beer. Based on what I see of your product line, you are aiming a lot higher than that, both in terms of quality and social consciousness. You are trying to be better than that. This was a definite misstep in that effort.

"I will not join a boycott of your products (not that I am aware of one) or anything like that. But I do think you made a mistake. If it was a "one off" error in judgment (and every one of us has a few of those in our backgrounds, truth be told), it is not that big a deal. But if it reflects a true statement of your company culture, that is a bigger problem."

[yngpunk]

Here is the e-mail I sent to Chrome in response to their solicitation of comments in the interest in an ongoing dialogue. It sums up my thoughts on this.

"I have now read your explanation/non-apologia concerning your Fashion Week promotion. It is clear to me that you folks either wildly over-thought or wildly under-thought the idea. I understand that this was meant as a tongue-in-cheek send-up of the overwrought Fashion Week uber-hype, but the bottom line is that you used bare tits - which have nothing to do with your products - to promote your business. In doing so, you did a disservice to women and to your brand.

"The disservice to women is obvious. I hope that needs no further explanation.

"The disservice to your brand comes because you have now equated yourselves with other products that have to resort to boobs to sell their product. Like fast-food burgers and mass-produced beer. Based on what I see of your product line, you are aiming a lot higher than that, both in terms of quality and social consciousness. You are trying to be better than that. This was a definite misstep in that effort.

"I will not join a boycott of your products (not that I am aware of one) or anything like that. But I do think you made a mistake. If it was a "one off" error in judgment (and every one of us has a few of those in our backgrounds, truth be told), it is not that big a deal. But if it reflects a true statement of your company culture, that is a bigger problem."

Just wondering, but do women refer to their breasts as "tits' and/or "boobs"? An interesting choice of words...

[Aaron O]

Does a company famous for fattys fit fine and the nice rack really have the moral authority to comment?

Edit - he beat me to it:

This makes the Surly "Nice Rack" a bit of an ironic name choice.

[cinema]

great post, she is correct. i think it will reverberate well, if not subtly, through the right channels in the industry. love both my surlys (cc and krampypants) and the company vibe.

also, just because surly has an attitude and a sense of humor does not mean it's ignorant. there are degrees. amy schumer can go on air and make a joke about not dating mexicans because she prefers consensual. while i think that joke is out of hand people give her leeway because she's a comedian, and also cognizant (she's not donald trump making the statement). surly clearly hires bright and talented women who have faith in the company. give them some props

[Ti Designs]

Nothing good can come from listening to anything any marketing department says, ever.

[A1CKot]

I feel like people are getting the point a little wrong. Its not about who is offered. Think about what this says to a woman considering working or currently working for these companies.

From Chrome's apology-
"The promotion was solely meant to reach new people and do so in a memorable and gender-neutral manner."
AND
"All three models wore the same outfit: shoes, 澱oy shorts and a bag to carry their flyers."

Would Chrome's campaign have been any different if the women were wearing tops? Who were they trying to market to? I feel like this how they market strip club in Las Vegas???


All that aside, the fact that Surly allowed Christina Julian to post this to their company blog says a lot about how the company treats and respect their employees.

[bikingshearer]

Just wondering, but do women refer to their breasts as "tits' and/or "boobs"? An interesting choice of words...

The choice reflects what I perceive to be the mindset (and word choices) of the target audience of the referenced usual suspects of the "sell it with cleavage" school of marketing, not the mindset of women. I have no clue what women in general call them. In the circles I frequent, to the extent that mammary glands are discussed at all, the women usually say "breasts" or, occasionally, "boobies."

I normally use the word "breasts" because everything else sounds so . . . crass and demeaning to my ear.

As with all opinions, YMMV.

[eddief]

and topless women handing out flyers and giving away bikini sox as swag.

one is sexual harassment = bad, the other is simply boobs and sox. if the boobs and sox offend you...well you have a choice about that. make the other choice and you'll feel better. don't let the tail wag the dog.

[kevinvc]

and topless women handing out flyers and giving away bikini sox as swag.

one is sexual harassment = bad, the other is simply boobs and sox. if the boobs and sox offend you...well you have a choice about that. make the other choice and you'll feel better. don't let the tail wag the dog.

That's a straw man argument; nobody here is directly equating all of those. There's a continuum and while bikini images on biking socks isn't anywhere near as egregious as sexual harassment, they both have a common element of objectifying women.

Also, saying that someone pointing out sexist objectification is the person with the problem rather than the lout who designed the promo is disingenuous. The larger point is that too many elements within the bike industry are stuck in a sophomoric "Mad Men" worldview at the same time they claim they want to increase their female customer base. It's obtuse for a company to put out a product or campaign that reduces women to base objects and then wonder why women aren't buying their products.

A business is free to put out tacky products or ads that demean half the population. But if they choose to do so they shouldn't be surprised if people call them out for it and if it impacts their sales. If that's the route to choose I, and many others, won't shed a tear when they go out of business.

[93legendti]

and topless women handing out flyers and giving away bikini sox as swag.

one is sexual harassment = bad, the other is simply boobs and sox. if the boobs and sox offend you...well you have a choice about that. make the other choice and you'll feel better. don't let the tail wag the dog.

Exactly. I prosecuted and won several sexual harassment cases for women. Ad campaigns re skin shouldn't get people's underwear in a bunch.

[eddief]

and they seem to enjoy wearing those. many men seem to enjoy looking at women in bikinis and thongs. the continuum starts where you choose to start it. i might suggest starting someplace less constricting.

That's a straw man argument; nobody here is directly equating all of those. There's a continuum and while bikini images on biking socks isn't anywhere near as egregious as sexual harassment, they both have a common element of objectifying women.

Also, saying that someone pointing out sexist objectification is the person with the problem rather than the lout who designed the promo is disingenuous. The larger point is that too many elements within the bike industry are stuck in a sophomoric "Mad Men" worldview at the same time they claim they want to increase their female customer base. It's obtuse for a company to put out a product or campaign that reduces women to base objects and then wonder why women aren't buying their products.

A business is free to put out tacky products or ads that demean half the population. But if they choose to do so they shouldn't be surprised if people call them out for it and if it impacts their sales. If that's the route to choose I, and many others, won't shed a tear when they go out of business.

[Gummee]

Exactly. I prosecuted and won several sexual harassment cases for women. Ad campaigns re skin shouldn't get people's underwear in a bunch.

Context. What's missing is context. IB is in Vegas. If ANYwhere's the capital of scantily clad females running around, it'd be there.

Would the same socks be handed out at the Philly IB? Doubt it. They'd probably cook up something like a sock with a cheese steak or the liberty bell on it.

...but they're in Vegas so g-strings it was.

Remember: there's no such thing as bad publicity. How many times have we mentioned Chrome in this thread? How many times have the socks come up? They've gotten lots more mileage out of people being offended than they would have otherwise.

Best thing you can probably do if you're offended is NOT blast it across the innerwebs. If its a 'big deal' there's lots of buzz. Buzz means people might be curious about the company and you get clicks on your website which may lead to sales, which leads to 'if it worked once'. etc etc

Least that's my $.02 on the whole 'I'm offended' thing.

[dustyrider]

"It is never what people do that make us angry; it is what we tell ourselves about what they did.

-Marshall Rosenberg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dpk5Z7GIFs)

[93legendti]

context. What's missing is context. Ib is in vegas. If anywhere's the capital of scantily clad females running around, it'd be there.

Would the same socks be handed out at the philly ib? Doubt it. They'd probably cook up something like a sock with a cheese steak or the liberty bell on it.

...but they're in vegas so g-strings it was.

Remember: There's no such thing as bad publicity. How many times have we mentioned chrome in this thread? How many times have the socks come up? They've gotten lots more mileage out of people being offended than they would have otherwise.

Best thing you can probably do if you're offended is not blast it across the innerwebs. If its a 'big deal' there's lots of buzz. Buzz means people might be curious about the company and you get clicks on your website which may lead to sales, which leads to 'if it worked once'. Etc etc

least that's my $.02 on the whole 'i'm offended' thing.

+1

I've mentioned the "I am offended" culture. Some people think because something offends them, it should be banned forever. Does that work both ways?

I say, if something offends you, there are probably things that you do that offends others. Pick your battles and lose the "I am offended" culture.

[gdw]

"the fact that Surly allowed Christina Julian to post this to their company blog says a lot about how the company treats and respect their employees."

It's also guerilla marketing at its finest.

[cinema]

i'm not necessarily offended by it but that doesn't mean a woman working in the industry feels the same way, it's obvious that she feels like it's perpetuating the real deal hegemonic issues she's had to deal with re: sexual harassment. i can see that. I'm not sure that she would be writing that article if she hadn't personally experienced what she's accusing people of.

[cinema]

"the fact that Surly allowed Christina Julian to post this to their company blog says a lot about how the company treats and respect their employees."

It's also guerilla marketing at its finest.

this isn't coca cola or mcdonalds. damn this isn't even specialized. if you're inferring that the reason for her indictment of the industry was for a sales bump you are delusional.

[eddief]

has legitimate reasons for being upset about the ways in which she has been treated or mistreated. i, of course, have never been in her shoes in that regard. but i think there is not much if any correlation between naked women and bikini sox and the sorts or harassment by which she has been victimized. Being sexually harassed, abused, or being asked to register both boobs at a trade show seem to speak to men who should be prosecuted or somehow punished. different than the relatively innocent examples that seemed to have set her off.

i agree with the response from the sock company:

the socks' producers, Save Our Soles issued a statement in response to social media outrage (#socksism). Posted to Facebook, the company's statement claims four women were in charge of designing the socks—and that Interbike attendees should still visit their booth. But, basically, #sorrynotsorry:

If you and all those that do not like our sock design this year, you don't have to keep it. If you don't agree with the inclusion of this sock in the Interbike goody bag, you are entitled to your opinion. The sock was meant to be fun while in Las Vegas. If you don't care for what Las Vegas is all about, then ask Interbike to move the show to a more conservative location. Every poll that Interbike takes, Las Vegas is always at the top. The sock design was never meant to offend any specific group or individual. It was meant to be fun.

[HenryA]

I'm just so outraged!

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-11/how-grown-ups-deal-with-microaggressions-

http://righteousmind.com/blog/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morty-lefkoe/victim-mentality_b_794628.html

When you've finished your reading assignment lets talk some more.

:banana:

[gdw]

"this isn't coca cola or mcdonalds. damn this isn't even specialized. if you're inferring that the reason for her indictment of the industry was for a sales bump you are delusional."

What did you learn from reading her blog?..... the industry is sexist but Surly is different and values women. The cycling industry doesn't attract the best and brightest marketing professionals so her post might not have been strategic but it was effective judging from some of the posts in this thread.

"I am fortunate to work with a group of men that do not say these things to me. They do not make me feel any less for being a women. Surly supports women. I truly believe this. We have and will make mistakes. All I can say is we will own these mistakes and learn from them. I hope others can say the same. Let's make change happen."

[cinema]

You realize you are talking about a bike company that, in 2015, doesn't have an Instagram account and makes steel bikes that come stock with bar end shifters. The post was written on a blog that doesn't even permalink it's entries. I think you're mistaken about their intentions.

[gdw]

I could be mistaken about the writer's intent but also see how the entry promotes Surly and understand why it was allowed to be published.

"the fact that Surly allowed Christina Julian to post this to their company blog says a lot about how the company treats and respect their employees."

[RudAwkning]

Interbike's theme this year is "Manifesto For Change". Article 8 in the Manifesto:

[RudAwkning]

The reply to a post on the Save Our Soles facebook page which was later removed:

Below is a repost from our main Facebook page in reply to a post by Elizabeth. Elizabeth. I'm am sorry you feel this way about my employees. I am the owner of the company, a male, that has been in the bike industry for 22 years in various capacities. I have been going to Interbike for 21 years and have owned and operated Save Our Soles since 2003. While I am aware of the reaction to our Interbike sock on social media, I would rather have all the people posting come by our booth at Interbike and meet the team at my company. These four wonderful women put their heart and soul into preparing for this trade show and it was the female designers, myself and the rest of the staff that wanted to produce this sock for Interbike. If you and all those that do not like our sock design this year, you don't have to keep it. If you don't agree with the inclusion of this sock in the Interbike goody bag, you are entitled to your opinion. The sock was meant to be fun while in Las Vegas. If you don't care for what Las Vegas is all about, then ask Interbike to move the show to a more conservative location. Every poll that Interbike takes, Las Vegas is always at the top. The sock design was never meant to offend any specific group or individual. It was meant to be fun. Also, the picture above was posted prior to our knowing what was happening on Social Media. We were all working very hard on our booth. I am very proud of my current staff and all their efforts. They deserve more respect than what you are giving them. If you would like to meet them in person, we will all be at booth 19191 from 9-6 Wed through Fri. You would learn more about what our company does and who is actually doing the work.

[rugbysecondrow]

Just wondering, but do women refer to their breasts as "tits' and/or "boobs"? An interesting choice of words...

Yes.

[rugbysecondrow]

I think some issues are being blended, which makes for easy conversation but I don't know that they are actually connected.

Does a company creating socks with bikini graphics on them directly relate to treating female employees with disrespect, sexual assault and other unprofessions/potentially unlawful acts?

Does a company employing topless models for a marketing stunt relate to how they treat women in the workplace?

Unless I am missing something, I don't think they are related. One can create an eye catching campaign, a media stunt which will create buzz (note, both companies succeeded beautifully) while also treating female employees with the respect, dignity and professionalism they deserve.

Sexual does not equal disrespect.

Although I think the way the female Surly employee has been treated in the past is abhorrent, I don't think the latest marketing stunts directly relate to her treatment anymore than any other company which uses beauty and sex to sell products.

[Big Dan]

Predictable responses from some of the guys here. Some things never change.
Hopefully they don't have daughters.

[inlimbo87]

Tacky, yes, but I'm not sure I'd call it sexist.

Sexist would be a female jersey that looked like an apron.

[93legendti]

i think some issues are being blended, which makes for easy conversation but i don't know that they are actually connected.

Does a company creating socks with bikini graphics on them directly relate to treating female employees with disrespect, sexual assault and other unprofessions/potentially unlawful acts?

Does a company employing topless models for a marketing stunt relate to how they treat women in the workplace?

Unless i am missing something, i don't think they are related. One can create an eye catching campaign, a media stunt which will create buzz (note, both companies succeeded beautifully) while also treating female employees with the respect, dignity and professionalism they deserve.

Sexual does not equal disrespect.

Although i think the way the female surly employee has been treated in the past is abhorrent, i don't think the latest marketing stunts directly relate to her treatment anymore than any other company which uses beauty and sex to sell products.
+1

[velomonkey]

Sexual does not equal disrespect.


Word. You can't equate actual sexism with an advertisement that is sexual.

[FlashUNC]

Does a company employing topless models for a marketing stunt relate to how they treat women in the workplace?




If you're the kind of senior leadership and marketing arm of a company that thinks topless models and sexual objectification are the way to create buzz around a company -- literally this is the image you want to broadcast to the world is cheap T&A -- I have a hard time thinking they're dealing with personnel behind closed doors with a nuanced and sensitive approach.

Even if that's wrong and they are a great place to work for women, that's not exactly the message that kind of campaign sends into the marketplace.

Just limit it to the Chrome example. The pitch of an "unfashion" brand during Fashion Week in NYC is a really clever idea to promote their new store there. But when their first instinct is to wrap that in nudity (how in the world does nudity sell your, yanno, clothing), in a campaign that presumably survived and received approval from a number of folks internally, it says a lot about the culture and the sensibility. Heck, even if it wasn't their first instinct, its still a stupid one.

[rugbysecondrow]

I am not saying it is the strategy I would chose, although now I know they sell more than bags, which I barely knew before.

Just because it is T and A, does that make it cheap? Maybe they have a less puritanical view on sex and the body, and they don't fell abashed about using that to sell goods.

I just don't get aghast about this stuff, nor assume connections where there are not any.

A week from now, more people will know Chrome and most wont remember why.



If you're the kind of senior leadership and marketing arm of a company that thinks topless models and sexual objectification are the way to create buzz around a company -- literally this is the image you want to broadcast to the world is cheap T&A -- I have a hard time thinking they're dealing with personnel behind closed doors with a nuanced and sensitive approach.

Even if that's wrong and they are a great place to work for women, that's not exactly the message that kind of campaign sends into the marketplace.

Just limit it to the Chrome example. The pitch of an "unfashion" brand during Fashion Week in NYC is a really clever idea to promote their new store there. But when their first instinct is to wrap that in nudity (how in the world does nudity sell your, yanno, clothing), in a campaign that presumably survived and received approval from a number of folks internally, it says a lot about the culture and the sensibility. Heck, even if it wasn't their first instinct, its still a stupid one.

[4Rings6Stars]

I am not saying it is the strategy I would chose, although now I know they sell more than bags, which I barely knew before.

Just because it is T and A, does that make it cheap? Maybe they have a less puritanical view on sex and the body, and they don't fell abashed about using that to sell goods.

I just don't get aghast about this stuff, nor assume connections where there are not any.

A week from now, more people will know Chrome and most wont remember why.

Put me in the camp of 'didn't know chrome sold clothing before, but do now'. I would call it a successful campaign.

(Also, and I know this doesn't mean anything really, but for grins I asked my wife and sister what they thought of the topless campaign and thong socks handed out in Vegas and the only thing they were offended by was the fact that it has caused an uproar... People are just looking for something to be offended by)

[SneakyFast1]

i really like elly blue's "is this thing sexist (http://takingthelane.com/2012/09/17/is-this-thing-sexist-introducing-the-bike-test/)?" criteria for evaluating images of women in cycling:

1. Are women present or represented at all?
2. Are the women presented as active subjects rather than passive objects?
3. If the gender were reversed, would the meaning stay more or less unchanged? (or would the image become hilarious?)

+1

[FlashUNC]

I am not saying it is the strategy I would chose, although now I know they sell more than bags, which I barely knew before.

Just because it is T and A, does that make it cheap? Maybe they have a less puritanical view on sex and the body, and they don't fell abashed about using that to sell goods.

I just don't get aghast about this stuff, nor assume connections where there are not any.

A week from now, more people will know Chrome and most wont remember why.

When its a street team handing out cards about a store location, yeah, its cheap.

When its a bag and clothing company -- the very things that cover the body -- and you're using nudity, its a cheap attention grab.

I'm not aghast. I chalk it up to amazing tone deaf, retrograde idiocy and mostly just incompetence. I don't think its that much of stretch to look at this ad and conclude that they may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[rugbysecondrow]

When its a street team handing out cards about a store location, yeah, its cheap.

When its a bag and clothing company -- the very things that cover the body -- and you're using nudity, its a cheap attention grab.

I'm not aghast. I chalk it up to amazing tone deaf, retrograde idiocy and mostly just incompetence. I don't think its that much of stretch to look at this ad and conclude that they may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer.

How many times have people who don't give a crap about Chrome mentioned Chrome because of this? Quite a few. Is this such a bad idea that they will loose substantial sales, or any really? I doubt it. People who want quality gear will over look this. Is it such a buzz generating idea that they might gain quite a few customers? You bet your arse they will.

Not a lot to lose here.

I am not a marketing genius though, just some normal dude who is defending a company I didn't really know existed 3 hours ago. Such is life. :beer:

[mg2ride]

When its a street team handing out cards about a store location, yeah, its cheap.

When its a bag and clothing company -- the very things that cover the body -- and you're using nudity, its a cheap attention grab.

I'm not aghast. I chalk it up to amazing tone deaf, retrograde idiocy and mostly just incompetence. I don't think its that much of stretch to look at this ad and conclude that they may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer.

You don't need a sharp knife to cut butter.

Add me to the list of people that had never even heard of Chrome before this but now are impressed by their offerings. If some of the shoes they had on sale would have been my size, a purchase would have been made already.

There are likely of more me's than you's in this case. This may very well prove to be one of their most successful ads ever.


P.S. Below is the email I sent them:


Prior to the uproar regarding you NYC Fashion week promo I had never heard of your company before. I was intrigued and decided to check out you website. My thoughts are this:

When you get the Kursk Grey Bike sneakers in a size 13 please let me know. They rock and me want!

[eddief]

in the dictionary. it still means what I thought it meant.

[FlashUNC]

You don't need a sharp knife to cut butter.

Add me to the list of people that had never even heard of Chrome before this but now are impressed by their offerings. If some of the shoes they had on sale would have been my size, a purchase would have been made already.

There are likely of more me's than you's in this case. This may very well prove to be one of their most successful ads ever.


P.S. Below is the email I sent them:


Prior to the uproar regarding you NYC Fashion week promo I had never heard of your company before. I was intrigued and decided to check out you website. My thoughts are this:

When you get the Kursk Grey Bike sneakers in a size 13 please let me know. They rock and me want!

Speaking from experience wholly separate from their ad, their product has seriously gone downhill in recent years. Their bags are awful.

If it works, good for them. But it ain't growing the pie, its just taking a slightly larger slice of the existing pie. And that's the deeper issue with cycling these days.

[Aaron O]

From the marketing manager of the bike that says fatties fit fine on the chain stay:

"We need to work to create an environment where people understand body love comes from the person in the body. It is not the job of an outside individual or company to tell anyone that their body is good or bad. We need to take the focus off of telling people how products and services can help them love themselves or hate themselves and focus on educating people. Educate them about the product and service you offer. Don't rely on joining up with movements that have nothing to do with your product or that may be using the human body as a spring board to make your product seen. That's just gross and lazy."

Give me a break.

[benb]

Just wanted to chime in with a reminder that Surly is not a tiny independent bike company, they're a wholly owned subsidiary/marketing name for bikes from the biggest (AFAIK) bike supplier/wholesaler in the country.

I think the comments from the woman at Surly are sincere but just keep in mind they are a part of a big company just like some of the other big companies that got mentioned. (Certainly bigger than Chrome or Save our Soles unless those are also owned by huge companies)

[Aaron O]

Just wanted to chime in with a reminder that Surly is not a tiny independent bike company, they're a wholly owned subsidiary/marketing name for bikes from the biggest (AFAIK) bike supplier/wholesaler in the country.

I think the comments from the woman at Surly are sincere but just keep in mind they are a part of a big company just like some of the other big companies that got mentioned. (Certainly bigger than Chrome or Save our Soles unless those are also owned by huge companies)

You don't get to use your company name, posted to a company site, without dragging that company in its entirety into the arena. What you posted might be true had this been her twitter feed, or facebook.

[AJM100]

in the words of "The Donald" = "this country does not have time for politically correct" . . .

I think culturally we have become a bit too PC . . .

and since we are also a culture of extremes the pendulum will swing again . . .

[oldpotatoe]

in the words of "The Donald" = "this country does not have time for politically correct" . . .

I think culturally we have become a bit too PC . . .

and since we are also a culture of extremes the pendulum will swing again . . .

Particularly Donald.

[Aaron O]

People complain about "PC" until it's their goose getting gored. There is nothing wrong with setting societal standards based on sensitivity and empathy to others.

[93legendti]

The PC crowd is sensitive only to their feelings and beliefs. Our societal standards are set by laws, not what someone wakes up one day and decides offends their fragile egos.

PC is just a way to try to get around the 1rst Amendment and is not democratic. More like fascist.

[Aaron O]

.

Not worth arguing about it.

[eddief]

hope no one is offended by the word fork.

[beeatnik]

The PC crowd is sensitive only to their feelings and beliefs. Our societal standards are set by laws, not what someone wakes up one day and decides offends their fragile egos.

PC is just a way to try to get around the 1rst Amendment and is not democratic. More like fascist.

You wouldn't throw the word fascist around if you had lived in Germany, Spain, Italy, Romania in the mid-20th Century.

[mg2ride]

The PC crowd is sensitive only to their feelings and beliefs. Our societal standards are set by laws, not what someone wakes up one day and decides offends their fragile egos.


+ one thousand million!



PC is just a way to try to get around the 1rst Amendment and is not democratic. More like fascist.
It's not that sinister and and is more inline with your first remark.

It is almost always about taking the moral or intellectual high ground to feel better about yourself. We all do it. Some just more than others.

[RudAwkning]

hope no one is offended by the word fork.

This entire thread is meaningless without even a single female perspective...

[rugbysecondrow]

This entire thread is meaningless without even a single female perspective...

This rationale is foreign to me. Why can my opinion only be valid if a female is around to validate it? The assumption is that males are so completely and utterly out of touch with 50% of the population that they couldn't possibly, intellectually or emotionally formulate an opinion worth forwarding.

Most of us don't live under rocks. We work with, live with, befriend, do business with, eat with, sleep with, teach, ride with etc women. I am so surrounded by women in my life (wife, two daughters, mother who is around a lot, friends from the gym etc) that I am more often in the company of women than men.

But, apparently, I ought not even comment on anything involving a female lest I get validation.

Makes no sense my man.

[Raffy]

This rationale is foreign to me. " The assumption is that males are so completely and utterly out of touch with 50% of the population that they couldn't possibly, intellectually or emotionally formulate an opinion worth forwarding.

Most of us don't live under rocks. We work with, live with, befriend, do business with, eat with, sleep with, teach, ride with etc women. I am so surrounded by women in my life (wife, two daughters, mother who is around a lot, friends from the gym etc) that I am more often in the company of women than men.

But, apparently, I ought not even comment on anything involving a female lest I get validation.

Makes no sense my man.

Post of the day. My man!

[cfox]

People complain about "PC" until it's their goose getting gored. There is nothing wrong with setting societal standards based on sensitivity and empathy to others.

That right there is the problem with PC...it's the very opposite of a standard. It's an ever morphing alphabet soup of acronyms, names, and phrases. Outside of the obvious (this list is shrinking), it's difficult to keep track of what offends people these days.

That said, I think a lot of people confuse common decency and being PC. It's not always "PC" to be nice.

[goonster]

Why can my opinion only be valid if a female is around to validate it? The assumption is that males are so completely and utterly out of touch with 50% of the population that they couldn't possibly, intellectually or emotionally formulate an opinion worth forwarding.

No, your opinion is not invalid, but there is a difference between talking about women, and having a discussion that includes women.

Motorists can have valid opinions about what cyclists should do, and put up with, when they talk among themselves, but it might be a slightly different conversation if it includes people who ride bikes.

[Aaron O]

That right there is the problem with PC...it's the very opposite of a standard. It's an ever morphing alphabet soup of acronyms, names, and phrases. Outside of the obvious (this list is shrinking), it's difficult to keep track of what offends people these days.

That said, I think a lot of people confuse common decency and being PC. It's not always "PC" to be nice.

Yet somehow I make it through the day without worrying about this stuff and without being a raging schmuck. It's really not that difficult to be respectful, which is really all anyone is looking for.

First...PC has no meaning. It's another buzz word people use to label a group of things they don't like. It's no different then yelling liberal or conservative loudly.

Second...this free speech/first amendment stuff is complete poppycock. The first amendment does not obligate people to buy what you sell in the market place of ideas...it gives you access to the market. That access to the market is further balanced with other rights in evolving court decisions. That crazy Kansas church is allowed to scream...and the rest of us are free to ignore them, or to condemn them as the crazed lunatics they are. Their right to scream then gets balanced with property rights of cemeteries, noise ordinances, etc.

There is a competition of ideas over what norms are...and they vary by location. I'm willing to bet that I can express some opinions that those shouting about PC and free speech will want censored or condemned. The non-sense that the culture battles have an ideological basis is absurd to me. The norms have steadily moved towards inclusiveness of some groups that others are opposed to for a variety of reasons. Just like norms moved away from those promulgated by the klan.

The problem to is the increasingly radicalized, ideological bend of views most have. People get their news from sources that will slant what they want to read to their views...and this hurts our ability to emphasize or understand those we disagree with. Most issues are complex - there aren't simple answers and neither "side" is fully right or wrong. We used to get to relatively successful positions with compromise.

[rugbysecondrow]

No, your opinion is not invalid, but there is a difference between talking about women, and having a discussion that includes women.

Motorists can have valid opinions about what cyclists should do, and put up with, when they talk among themselves, but it might be a slightly different conversation if it includes people who ride bikes.

Understood. The reference post was about the thread being "meaningless" without female involvement, which I disagree with.

[benb]

I know the crowd is older here... wait till you see what is coming up next...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

PC is out.. wait till you hear about microaggressions and trigger warnings. Hopefully this is a step too far and won't get a foothold in the professional world where real folks have to get real work done. :eek:

[rugbysecondrow]

I know the crowd is older here... wait till you see what is coming up next...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

PC is out.. wait till you hear about microaggressions and trigger warnings. Hopefully this is a step too far and won't get a foothold in the professional world where real folks have to get real work done. :eek:

I have read about these. That Atlantic article is a great read.

It is disconcerting the direction we are heading. These ideas already popped up on the forum, in other threads. It is amazing that many comedians have begun boycotting colleges as they are under constant protest, it just isn't worth it.

People should be free, and be able to operate with their rights intact, but there is no right to operate free from offense. As grown folks, we need to learn to accept that.

This is must different than a boss or client trying to sexually assault a female employee or make comments about move the meeting to his hot tub.

[Mark McM]

There was a good editorial in the Boston Globe (often accused of being part of the "liberal press") recently that opined that the move toward political correctness has gone to far on college campuses, and how it is stifling free speech and open debate:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/08/29/today-students-want-debate-overprotective-safe-space/3brb0c3Cklg1UPgKDhDtYJ/story.html

Here's a portion of it:

Kelefa Sanneh in The New Yorker recently reported on the ways that the defense of free speech, once held sacred by college students bristling against a moralistic parental culture, is now under assault from students who can�š bear to hear anything with which they don�š agree. A new article in The Atlantic, titled �…�he Coddling of the American Mind, examines how the big stick of 鍍rigger warnings and the sharp sting of charges of �œicroaggressions are employed to muzzle language, the teaching of concepts, the use of sources.

Here are some truths. People should be allowed to feel physically and emotionally safe in their academic communities. Victims of sexual abuse and/or assault should be treated with sensitivity and an awareness of the lasting effects of trauma. Campus assault exists, as do intentional and unexamined bias. Institutions of higher learning can marginalize women, people of color, and the LGBT community as easily as corporations can.

Here are some others: Ideas can be dangerous and upsetting and threatening, and there is no better place to learn how to deal with them than high school and college. To engage with something that may offend you is to gain power over it; to refuse to engage leaves you powerless. Life comes with infinite triggers and precious few warnings, and learning the strength and abilities to cope with that is part of what education what existence itself is about. Empathy counts, as does individual nerve. It�—� a balance.

[RudAwkning]

Understood. The reference post was about the thread being "meaningless" without female involvement, which I disagree with.

Sorry. Semantics. Goonster made my point.

[Aaron O]

College students grow up, and what some fringes argue for on campus is hardly the societal standard or especially burdensome for those of us living in the real world. I went to among the most liberal colleges in the US...it made me more center/conservative. Some of the stuff I heard expressed was inane (just like so much of what the far right espouses is inane). None of that stuff is the societal standard in the world I live in.

It would sure be nice if people resisted the urge to condemn the other "side" by what the most radical believe, especially radical children still rebelling and finding their way.

It's hard seeing the radicalized, anonymous flame speech so prevalent on the internet without wanting to push back.

[benb]

Well one thing to keep in mind is the Article comes from the Atlantic and then was commented on by the Boston Globe. They are both fairly liberal publications, and yet microaggression and trigger warnings are alarming for them as well. (Disclaimer I'm pretty liberal myself)

The Atlantic article is a long read but it's really worth reading.. some of the stuff is just totally shocking, for example the University of California has published a list of offensive sayings/ideas that include such innocuous things as:

"Where are you from?"
"America is a land of opportunity."

etc, etc...

Some of this almost makes me wonder if some of the increasingly obnoxious group riding behavior in cycling even has something to do with this.. if you grew up with a participation trophy for everything you're probably not going to want your behavior commented on if you're riding dangerously in a group.

This is all a far cry from something like marketing with topless women of course.

I went to engineering school, there was very little PC around at all, although there is clearly more at my alma mater today.

[rugbysecondrow]

Maybe, to some degree, the topless/bikini marketing is a result of an over zealous speech/ideas/actions limiting culture. A strong push back in the opposite direction.

I have seen other sports and activities take ownership sexuality and gender through empowerment, not by being the thought police and being in a constant state of offense.

EDIT:

In addition, it seems that Facebook and other media allows people to control what they hear, from whom, and when. They are in control of their content almost completely. This means people can function in their life comfortably placed in a bubble which will filter ideas and thoughts. If there is something you don't like, unfriend. An article you don't like, skip it. You can be the master of your informational universe.

I recently read this, and I have to say I really like the idea. It is provocative, it is a conversation starter, it offers a perspective which is hard to grapple with. Interestingly, the responses to the "art" are more telling than the art itself. Before people knew the artist was black, they presumed it was a white student. Calls of racism, terrorism, hate crime, expulsion etc were all thrown around. Come to find out, it is a black female who posted the signs. Reactions changed. This is why we have thought exercises, we confront people with uncomfortable truths.



https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-roiled-art-project-whites-only-posters-around-campus





Well one thing to keep in mind is the Article comes from the Atlantic and then was commented on by the Boston Globe. They are both fairly liberal publications, and yet microaggression and trigger warnings are alarming for them as well. (Disclaimer I'm pretty liberal myself)

The Atlantic article is a long read but it's really worth reading.. some of the stuff is just totally shocking, for example the University of California has published a list of offensive sayings/ideas that include such innocuous things as:

"Where are you from?"
"America is a land of opportunity."

etc, etc...

Some of this almost makes me wonder if some of the increasingly obnoxious group riding behavior in cycling even has something to do with this.. if you grew up with a participation trophy for everything you're probably not going to want your behavior commented on if you're riding dangerously in a group.

This is all a far cry from something like marketing with topless women of course.

I went to engineering school, there was very little PC around at all, although there is clearly more at my alma mater today.