Puerile sexist shite

I feel it only fair to name the offending publication;

https://twitter.com/Chapeau_Velo/status/903333298361032704

I hadn't unwrapped CW yet, but there it is. Worrying on a number of levels--it looks like a subbing mistake that was meant to be replaced by some other blurb and then got forgotten about, a bit like muttering under your breath what you really think and then get overheard. They usually try to highlight it when a club has active female riders, many of whom play leading roles, so was it the sub's mistake or does it reflect a general attitude? I hope neither, but certainly hope not the latter.

They've offered up a shit apology.

I was thinking across similar lines, it wasn't a "shit joke", it was an editing direction that wasn't removed before print...

We subscribe, and have just cancelled. Grrr

As apologies go, it's a pretty good one. It acknowledges that they were wrong, it suggests they won't don't again, and it expresses remorse.

That's what you should expect from a proper apology (not the disingenuous standard nonpology of "sorry you're offended")

Well done.

I don't think I agree. The apology seems to more or less entirely blame it on a sub-editor. It doesn't seem to take any larger responsibility. Even a line along the lines of "it saddens us that our culture through the firm has not made it quite clear that such comments are unacceptable, we will be doing x to ensure that all staff are aware of our values" or somesuch would be better

Seems to be the old 'pass the buck' excuse to me.

What more could they say or do to help right now?

Long term more positive support for women's cycling.

I didn't get it when I saw it tweeted. With no context of the image I thought it could've been commenting on sexism in an advert or something. Now it makes sense.

it could've been commenting on sexism in an advert or something

Maybe it was - guerrilla *sub editor ?

• who has since been sacked and his children made fatherless ?
  
  

or maybe even "we intend to hire more female sub-editors in future".

It's a shit excuse for a magazine these days anyway (not that it was ever really any good).

Hopefully this will accelerate its demise.

What's the problem here? They called her attractive - can we not even compliment chicks in these snowflake days?

^ cucks tho.

cucks tho

https://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-white-men-love-calling-people-cucks

:)

oof... gq tho.

reads anyway

hahaha

Maybe it was a female sub-editor vex'd at token representation of female cyclists in the publication?

Snap!

it could've been commenting on sexism in an advert or something

up there ^^^^^^^^ it could've been commenting on sexism in an advert or something