Victoria Pendleton

That's me told.

Because your contribution to the thread was really intelligent wasn't it?

Ohhh, I'm so disappointed. :(

Apparently the interview (which I haven't read) also involved her slagging off other female trackies for being 'masculine', and having 'deep voices' and 'facial hair'.

Sounds to me like someone's stoking a very fragile ego...

Sounds to me like she's accusing them of being a bunch of dopers. Which is a different debate.

Ohhh, I'm so disappointed. :(

Apparently the interview (which I haven't read) also involved her slagging off other female trackies for being 'masculine', and having 'deep voices' and 'facial hair'.

Sounds to me like someone's stoking a very fragile ego...

Sounds to me like she's accusing them of being a bunch of dopers. Which is a different debate.

or even more, someone else has write the interview!

(Oh, and the plural of penis is 'penies'. God knows why I know that.)

The plural of penis is "cocks".

Or, "Manchester United".

The terms usable interchangeably.

I kind of see where you're going with this now. For me, biological characteristics, such as beards, breasts, body fat, voice etc. are a given (although as an aside, I work with a lot of trans people who would argue that in spite of having male or female biological characteristics, they are in fact female or male...), whereas behaviours and traits (aggression, submission, competitiveness...) are not.

I understand that it would be lovely if it were true that behaviours lack biological causes, but sadly it is not. It is a complete fantasy.

How would you explain the complex behaviours of animals (bees, birds, insects, whatever you want really) that lack a society or the brain power to be "conditioned"? Bees don't do a lot of conceptual thinking, and they don't watch TV and read magazines, but they do exhibit strongly deterministic and ordered social behaviour. How could this be caused other than biologically?

Sure, that's bees, we're people. But as you get closer to humans and look at primate behaviour you can see that there is a continuum between learned and biologically programmed behaviour. We've been evolving for millions and millions of years, and for most of it we weren't smart enough to reason, so it was our biology that did the work of setting our behaviour. just because we've managed to improve slightly in the last 100,000 years or so (that's being generous - we've only had towns for a few thousand years) doesn't mean we can just ignore millions of years of biological impulses. We're pretty much the same as we were in the Stone Age, and our behaviour is conditioned by our genes, like it or not!

But hey, there's hope! there are a lot of people in this world, and a big fucking long continuum of biological interactions and variances. It's not as if there are two (gendered) categories of behaviours and we're either in one or the other. People overlap, have different biological construction, respond differently to situations, wa-hey! We're obviously not all clones of each other rolling off a giant genetic factory, and admitting that our behaviour has biology behind it doesn't force you to admit that. Social conditioning is all well and good, but it's only part of the story.

BUT i still think you should go and do some more reading. you might even find it interesting. Srsly.

this is the best/funnest discussion i've had on here for ages.

I like the last paragraph, but you've lost me now - mainly because I've never denied that biology is the cause of these things. I totally accept that biology explains our physical characteristics, as well as our predisposition for certain behaviours, but that we're not defined by biology in terms of our role in society - the traditional assumption that there are jobs/roles that women can't do, that they should stay at home and look after the family, or that women are somehow intellectually inferior does not apply.

Put it this way - I'm never going to be able to give birth, but I do want to be involved in raising my kids, so may take on a "traditional" female gender role in staying at home to look after them.

The biggest issue for me is the broader one of why it is that so many female athletes feel there is this need to validate themselves by stripping off for lads' magazines, when male athletes seem to be appreciated purely for their skills or athletic ability. It's the disparity that bothers me - not the fact that she's done it. Very few women are able to stand on their own merits, which is a shame.

Me too. I was flicking through a book about the 1948 Olympics the other day, and found a photo of a British high jumper, jumping over the washing line on which she'd hung out her child's nappies. It was a rather cute photo, but it reminds me of these VP ones, in that it seems to assure the world (men? people?) that no matter what this woman's athletic achievements - don't worry, she's still conventionally feminine (and therefore not a threat to our precious status quo). Which is a shame, because female athletes are in such a good position to extend our ideas of what is 'feminine'. And god, we're in need of that.

(Mind you, I remain unconvinced that we even need the principles of masculine and feminine. Biology aside, can someone tell me why they're so important?)

Oh, and the fact that there are now a few pictures of air-brushed half-naked men knocking around (Beckham et al) doesn't really fill me with hope. For a start, there are far fewer of them. (I keep meaning to count how many scantily-clad women I'm bombarded with every day (adverts, etc.), but suspect it would just depress me.) And it's the wrong sort of equality - surely it would be better to get rid of these things altogether, rather than just trying to increase the number of men who hate their bodies?

BUT i still think you should go and do some more reading. you might even find it interesting. Srsly.

Could you give us a couple of names or something, to start me off? I'm not sure if I agree with your points, but I've read and thought far too little about this side of things to be sure.

what a bunch of wank-lads. i wonder if she'd be good fun to hang out with or whether she'd be really competitive and dull?

Emilia, please try to remember that us boys carry the burden of owning peni. it renders us completely idiotic if we let it. it's a constant battle. i apologise on behalf of mine and those of my fellow forumengers. We might be civilised but we have not yet found a way to overcome this biological fact that belongs back in the wild from whence we came. it skews the way we see women a bit sometimes. sorry.

i feel i should clarify that this was tongue-in-cheek (if it wasn't already completely obvious). jeez. Also I realise that peni isn't the plural of penis. again, jeez.

I had a quick glans at it...

this post was an overlooked gem!

Me too. I was flicking through a book about the 1948 Olympics the other day, and found a photo of a British high jumper, jumping over the washing line on which she'd hung out her child's nappies. It was a rather cute photo, but it reminds me of these VP ones, in that it seems to assure the world (men? people?) that no matter what this woman's athletic achievements - don't worry, she's still conventionally feminine (and therefore not a threat to our precious status quo). Which is a shame, because female athletes are in such a good position to extend our ideas of what is 'feminine'. And god, we're in need of that.

(Mind you, I remain unconvinced that we even need the principles of masculine and feminine. Biology aside, can someone tell me why they're so important?)

Oh, and the fact that there are now a few pictures of air-brushed half-naked men knocking around (Beckham et al) doesn't really fill me with hope. For a start, there are far fewer of them. (I keep meaning to count how many scantily-clad women I'm bombarded with every day (adverts, etc.), but suspect it would just depress me.) And it's the wrong sort of equality - surely it would be better to get rid of these things altogether, rather than just trying to increase the number of men who hate their bodies?

The point in bold there is really what I've been getting at - there's so much social diversity out there, that to try and define one's characteristics or actions as inherently determined by biology would appear to be a fallacy. Class, culture, sexual orientation, income, education, upbringing, experiences - these are all integral to who we are. To try and define my behaviours as 'male' or 'female' does me a disservice.

it seems to assure the world (men? people?) that no matter what this woman's athletic achievements - don't worry, she's still conventionally feminine (and therefore not a threat to our precious status quo). Which is a shame, because female athletes are in such a good position to extend our ideas of what is 'feminine'.
...
And it's the wrong sort of equality - surely it would be better to get rid of these things altogether, rather than just trying to increase the number of men who hate their bodies?

Do you really see the world like this? It's not the 70s. Surely nobody in modern Britain thinks that strong successful women are in any way a threat to the status quo. The're part the status quo and have been for decades. Men are attracted to strong powerful and successful women - there's no struggle between this and femininity.

I don't know, maybe, if it reassured anyone of anything, it reassured VP that being a fast cyclist is merely what she does, not what she is?
...
And no, it wouldn't be better to get rid of nice photos of beautiful people wearing not much. It would be indescribably worse. I don't need a return to puritan Victorian moral prudishness thank you. A society which is comfortable with nudity is one which is comfortable with its own humanity and sexuality. A mature society with high level of respect, tolerance and freedom. This is a healthy thing. The opposite can be found wherever Islamists hold power.

Because your contribution to the thread was really intelligent wasn't it?

I think I know a little boy who needs a lie down.

I think I know a little boy who needs a lie down.

Smell my cheese.

Smell my cheese.

Probably your most intelligent contribution to this thread so far. Keep it up.

A society which is comfortable with nudity is one which is comfortable with its own humanity and sexuality.

I'm reluctant to get involved in yet another of these perennial and pointless debates about gender and sexual politics, but I don't see the exploitation of sexualised imagery for marketing purposes as necessarily a sign of a "society which is comfortable with nudity". If we were actually comfortable with nudity, the people in advertisments for walk-in baths wouldn't be in bathing suits, for example.

Yeah... and you'd be able to see more knobs on TV.

Yeah... and you'd be able to see more knobs on TV.

Thats all we need.

Yeah... and you'd be able to see more knobs on TV.

Gosh, that'd be great wouldn't it!

I'm reluctant to get involved in yet another of these perennial and pointless debates about gender and sexual politics, but I don't see the exploitation of sexualised imagery for marketing purposes as necessarily a sign of a "society which is comfortable with nudity". If we were actually comfortable with nudity, the people in advertisments for walk-in baths wouldn't be in bathing suits, for example.

well said.

Yeah... and you'd be able to see more knobs on TV.

Bleugh. Naked Jungle, anyone?

Christ if some of you lot spent as much time talking to women/men as you do waxing on about the complexities of being a man/woman in the gender stereo typing modern age.. you might get some and spend less time thinking about this shit

An athlete has made it to the front of a bays mag. Ooooooh!
That's great she probably loves feeling sexy and being desired after all that hard work on the bike. she is a woman after all

+1

if pip spent more time talking to girls instead of doing his hair, he might get some

she is a woman after all