A council has withdrawn a leaflet advertising a sportive ride after being accused of sexism for a message that suggested that while men go ride their bikes, women can go shopping instead.
Stockton Borough Council’s flyer featured a picture of a smiling male cyclist* together with the text, “Sarah’s shopping in Stockton with the girls. I’m signed up for Stockton’s Sportive. That’s Saturday sorted.”
The leaflet aimed to encourage participation in the Stockton Velo29-Altura Endeavour Sportive on July 12, which forms part of the Stockton Cycling Festival from 11-13 July.
Cyclists Carole Jones and Yvonne Ramage made a complaint about the leaflet, which reportedly featured only young, male cyclists [presumably there's more to it than the cover shown above – ed]. Besides being sexist, they said it should be more inclusive of older and disabled people, reports the Northern Echo.
Jones, whom the paper says helps run the Cycle Sisters women’s cycling club, said: “Me and my friend, Yvonne, were at the cycle hub centre in Stockton when the leaflets came in.
"At first we just laughed, thinking it was a joke but then we started to take it more seriously. The message of the leaflet is, ‘come cycling if you are a young, affluent male.'
"It’s clear that Mrs Pankhurst’s work is not yet done,” she added, referring to the leader of the Suffragette movement.
Conservative councillor for Yarm, Andrew Sherris, gave his support to the women, saying: “This really is a very poor piece of publicity… and should be withdrawn.”
Stockton Council has done just that, and Ken Dixon, its cabinet member for arts, leisure and culture, said: “It was certainly not our intention to imply that women and girls cannot participate in every part of the festival and having listened to the concerns raised, we have decided to withdraw this particular leaflet and produce a redesigned version.”
According to the Northern Echo, £514 had been spent on the leaflets, but they had not been distributed beyond the Stockton cycle hub.
Sustrans regional director Bryn Dowson commented: “We’re pleased that this leaflet will be replaced by one with a more inclusive message.”
• Former Team Raleigh rider Graham Briggs, now with Rapha Condor JLT
38 thoughts on “Council withdraws ‘sexist’ leaflet advertising sportive”
Why did I read the comments
Why did I read the comments on the original news article!?
*smashes head against brick wall*
More importantly:
Who gave
More importantly:
Who gave the brief for the leaflet?
And who signed it off?
I would assume that each of the sponsors – Sustrans, BC/Sky and Stockton Council would all have been given proofs to OK.
If they weren’t, Velo29 events just ran a cart/horses through Rule 1 of sponsor management – get approval for anything linked to their brand.
It’s not enough to simply have it withdrawn. There should be an analysis of how this garbage ever saw the light of day and process changes to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
It could easily have cost a lot more than £514.
And I hope Velo29 are not charging anyone for reworking and reprinting.
I’d planned a big clever and
I’d planned a big clever and fair post on why I’m on the fence with this one and why it’s been approached wrongly etc etc etc etc ….and then I saw the comment on the original article “is it because men are faster?”
All I can think of now is beer-gutted, hairy legged, assos clad merchant bankers, swearing expletives at me under their thinning breaths as I glide past them as they fail to catch my wheel…..which is exactly why I hate most Sportives and exactly proves the point of why this poster is ridiculous.
I’m not here to feed the egos of substandard* sportspeople, nor is any other woman.
*not skills based, I mean substandard in that they are not true sportsmen/people if they behave like this, and need to have words with themselves.
mooleur wrote:
All I can
Thank you Mooleur I nearly emptied a mouthful of coffee over my phone when I read this!
Brilliant.
mooleur wrote:
All I can
Yesterday I saw a cyclist in the distance and as I caught him on a climb, he looked just like that. His jacket brand gave him away as well.
I’m with KiwiMike – who in
I’m with KiwiMike – who in their right mind thought
“yeah, that looks good – let’s run it!”
men are faster –
men are faster – generally
Women do go shopping more – generally
The comments on Road.cc’s
The comments on Road.cc’s facebook link to this story are gutter-dwelling sexist sludge. But here we have balance and erudition. Keep up the good work, readers. *sets road.cc as homepage from now on*
I’d imagine Emmeline had more
I’d imagine Emmeline had more pressing matters than complaining about badly dressed dicksplashes mucking about on bikes on a Saturday afternoon.
But then I’d also imagine that the best move to stop a leaflet I found offensive being seen by a large audience isn’t to take a scan and run to the press with it, thus handing the company and event you’re angry with a huge boost to their advertising.
You could also say there is also a curious logic of two people who run a women’s only cycling club complaining about inclusivity.
All seems a bit storm in tea cup really.
farrell wrote:I’d imagine
Absolutely. If you have a look at the comments on the facebook article (repost from road.cc) it only serves as testament to this. It’s slightly cringeworthy to be honest.
The kneejerk media reaction to this has only made the situation worse, more average sportive geezers are gonna view all women cyclists as raging narky feminists (yeah most of us are…) – instead of just “people who ride bikes” – which is what we ALL are and what we should all be seen as.
I don’t think it’s wrong that the publication has been pulled, but the subsequent actions and reactions to it are not healthy. It’s as bad as the drivers v cyclists thing, it’s like men vs women!
I’m all for sticking up for “our bit” of the sport and making sure we all work to create a healthy, welcoming environment for all people to enjoy – but outing the publishers right away, and then whipping up the story to encourage a flurry of naysayers only makes things worse.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to ostracise a demographic by laying down stereotypes here… however, I do find there is a strong correlation between needlessly expensive gear, adorned by helplessly out of shape males with temper issues.
There are, of course, plenty of male 40/50 something unshaven high end gear buying folk who’d kick my ass any day of the week, but at least they don’t whinge about it if they don’t, and at least they’re polite when they pass me.
Incidentally this seems to be a similar demographic as those that whine on forums about cheating on fantasy games run by volunteers and complain about the fact that they’re not in team Sky because they’re obviously do a way better job than Sir Dave and everyone who wins a race is on drugs and that women’s racing shouldn’t be taken seriously because they’re biologically incapable, but that’s a whole other conversation. 😉
mooleur wrote:Don’t get me
I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above. Now get back into the kitchen! 😉
Could someone please organise
Could someone please organise a sportive and call it MAMILfest? There are those women-only ones after all so it’s only fair.
Sounds like the start of a
Sounds like the start of a Bernard Right-on joke:
A gay black man, a jewish guy in a wheelchair and an elderly muslim woman go to a photoshoot for a cycle sportive leaflet……….what a splendid example of an ethnocentrically inclusive and diverse event.
will somebody think of the
(|: will somebody think of the children :O
I’ve now got ‘Hiphopopotamus
I’ve now got ‘Hiphopopotamus Vs. Rhymenoceros’ stuck in my head.
Yes, sometimes my lyrics are sexist
But you lovely bitches and hoes should know I’m trying to correct this.
farrell wrote:I’ve now got
Hahaha ace. Thanks for the earworm!
It might be very clever
It might be very clever marketing – el cheapo sexist leaflets printed in a very small quantity, then let it go viral. Hey presto – loadsa publicity, and quite possibly loads of women signing up as a form of protest.
Maybe, anyway.
It’s all a bit nonsense
It’s all a bit nonsense really – it is patronising to women, but apparently it’s perfectly fine in the other direction – after all, I was up 5 times in the night to sort my twins out, but that’s ok, because according to the advert, SMA ‘know Mums’, and they’re ‘doing great’.
notfastenough wrote:It’s all
Ooooh those adverts really annoy me.
I’m feeling a day of rants coming on. Be prepared people of the internet!
notfastenough wrote:It’s all
The “man who is useless around the house” – frequently featured in washing powder or cooking ingredient adverts – gets on my t!ts too.
Presumably the complainant
Presumably the complainant will be outraged at the Hub webpage which shows a man on a bike, men with a bike and a woman…..walking kids. :))
I think its been blown out of all proportion it’s a standard ad game using initial letters Saturday Sarah Shopping Stockton Sportive, maybe womens tiny brains can’t compute that =))
“I’m Brian and so’s my
“I’m Brian and so’s my wife!!”
Of course, “Sarah” might
Of course, “Sarah” might spend all week as a 6 foot tall hairy-arsed scaffolder called Dave, and its only on Saturdays that he puts on something fabulous to go shopping with the girls.
I know I do.
allez neg wrote:Of course,
So that’s you?
I didn’t recognise you from the front.
Quote:Besides being sexist,
This demand actually makes this style of advert impossible doesn’t it?
The advert uses an imaginary man (let’s call him Steven) who has an imaginary other half called Sarah. Imaginary Sarah happens to be planning an imaginary shopping excursion, so Steven is planning to go for a bike ride.
The reader (whoever they are) who is assumed to be willing to consider going for a bike ride is supposed to be attracted by Steven’s enthusiasm for his plan, and to sign up for the bike ride also.
The complaint assumes that a woman will learn from the advertisement that she should go shopping, and older people, people with disabilities, and presumably minority ethnic origin people (although they aren’t mentioned) will feel that the event has nothing to do with them.
If the leaflet designer had instead imagined a woman in her 60s who suffers from diabetes but who was going on the sportive while her imaginary son Oliver was going to the beautician to have his sack waxed that would (arguably) deal with the problem but at the risk of (a) making the event appear to have nothing to do with its (actual) core audience – which isn’t a great advertising tactic – while (b) still running the risk of creating a load of additional unhelpful stereotypes.
The entire “imaginary person looks forward to weekend plan” style just has to be binned, doesn’t it?
BigDummy wrote:Quote:The
Not really – it just needs to be done without the standard patronising gender stereotyping. For example the advert could just as easily show a couple or a group of people planning to go off and ride the sportive.
If they want to make the sportive look more attractive than alternatives such as shopping they can easily do that at the same time without stereotyping e.g. “what are you doing this weekend? Shopping, cutting the grass, watching the football….? Well we’re all off to have fun riding the …. sportive”
You could equally have a series on the same theme with each showing a different individual who’s looking forward to the weekend plan to ride the sportive.
Councils generally know how to be inclusive but they don’t always get it right.
Just about every other ride
Just about every other ride in the world manages to advertise to its market successfully without alienating 50% of the population whilst looking like a monkey fornicating with an object of sporting apparatus.
That cover-line just makes me
That cover-line just makes me cringe. I don’t think you have to be conciously ‘PC’ to just find it naff.
I’m not into cycling-as-sport particularly anyway, but the implication that its stuck somewhere between Saudi Arabia and golf clubs, in terms of its social attitudes, doesn’t really draw me to it.
Edit – personally I think that this came from a public body, a local council, makes it worse than similar things from entirely private businesses. Local councils are supposed to represent everyone, if a business wants to alienate its customers that’s kind of self-limiting.
I’ve never been to a sportive
I’ve never been to a sportive but from the many images I’ve seen of such events it appears that about 95% of the participants are males in the 25-55 age bracket __ a bit like the bloke on the poster really.
So … Stockton Council are guilty of targeting their advertising at the demographic group who they think are most likely to be interested. How very *dare* they.
Should I get really upset that Fairy Liquid adverts (or similar domestic products) always feature savvy good-looking women for example? Does the exclusion of men in such adverts indicate that men never do the washing up or are too stupid to understand the particular qualities of Proctor & Gamble’s products? Or are P&G just targeting their primary demographic?
What about the Ronseal “it does exactly what it says on the tin” adverts? I’ve never seen a woman feature on any of those. Why not?
This is just utter PC nonsense as far as I’m concerned. All those feigning faux-outrage need to get themselves a life.
Should I get really upset
Like this annoying woman, Harriet I think her name is.
Joeinpoole wrote:I’ve never
Well those adverts are from private companies. So its up to them if they want to limit their market (or make correct judgements about who their customers are). As this is from a local council, so presumably funded by council tax, and is apparently about encouraging physical activity and more cycling for its own sake I don’t see that its the same thing.
That’s what I have a problem with – if it were an advert made entirely by a private profit-making company running Sportives, with no state involvement, purely as a commercial venture, I don’t think it would bother me all that much (though it still would put me off the event, personally).
And I don’t think targeting ‘those they think are interested’ is the same as sending a message to everyone else that this is not for them. This ad, with the whole ‘girls going shopping’ bit, seems to be more of the latter.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Private companies? The sportive appears to be hosted and advertised by ‘Velo 29’ and simply sanctioned and/or sponsored by Stockton Council as part of their ‘Cycling Festival’. It’s not clear to me if Velo 29 are a private business, a non-profit or whatever. They’re inviting 500-odd riders and charging them £15-25 for the privilege of participating and so generating about £10K in revenue.
Advertising is a notoriously hit-or-miss affair. As you say, private companies can spend their money how they wish, however if this *was* public funds being spent then I’d hope it was being as targeted as narrowly as possible … because that’s a far more efficient use of the money. There’s absolutely no point in spending half the money advertising to women if it’s well known that 99% of them simply aren’t interested.
There’s also another way of looking at this. The fact that ‘Sarah’ has decided to go shopping with the girls is essentially providing the ‘permission’ that her feeble man needs in order to participate in the event. Ergo … Sarah is wearing the trousers in that relationship. Sarah didn’t need permission to go shopping __ she’s her own woman. If she *hadn’t* chosen to go shopping then there’s no way that her oppressed partner would have been *allowed* to do as he wished for a few hours.
This advert is clearly a sickening portrayal of how dominant women are in their relationships with their pathetic, henpecked men. Otherwise the bloke would be saying “Fuck Sarah. I’m doing what I want and she’d bloody well better have my dinner on the table for when I get back”. That’s what I’d be saying anyway. Last time I checked in my underpants there was a pair of bollocks in there. The bloke in the poster needs to grow himself a pair.
Joeinpoole wrote:
What about
maybe you just dont pay enough attention to the ads 😕
look Im not some bra burning feminista offended by everything that doesnt promote absolute equality, but when I saw that sportive ad I thought it was pretty rubbish that Stockton Council thought it was appropriate to rely on such lazy gender stereotyping to promote an event that should actually appeal to anyone interested in cycling full stop.
the fact these things are 95% male dominated is precisely the reason why they should be looking to widen the appeal of it, not effectively reinforce messages that do discourage women from taking up cycling recreationally or as a sport & that includes alot of the nonsense thats followed about it online since.
Why didn’t Stockton Counil
Why didn’t Stockton Counil consult with the Cycle Hub before paying out for the printing.
Obviously they knew they existed, as it was there that they did the first leaflet drop.
All of this inter-sexual cr*p would have been avoided.
Is doing a sportive the day
Is doing a sportive the day before a premier calendar a good idea Graham?
If there’s such a storm in a
If there’s such a storm in a teacup then it is my right as a male to ride in one of the women only cycletta Sportives. If there was a men only sportive it would be banned/stopped/forced to change.
It’s like loose women on TV. If a men only programme spoke the same way about women it would be withdrawn. If the diet coke break ads were reversed with a group of male builders leering over a scantily dress female office worker it would be banned.
This is ridiculous!
As a
This is ridiculous!
As a female cyclist, I was sent this (without the story) and asked what I felt about it. Nothing stood out as offensive. If you want segregate yourself, you will always find a reason to be offended! Should women be offended at the suggestion that they go shopping in town on a Saturday? No, it was his (fictional) partner’s choice to go shopping, to partake in an activity she enjoys…just as he is doing. Personally, the advert reads “well, the missus is going shopping, I’ve got nowt planned! I’ll do a sportive!”. It’s not like it reads “Well, my wife has lots of cleaning, cooking and child rearing to do and that’s not MY job!”
As a female cyclist who doesn’t enjoy shopping, my general response to the advert is “More fool on Sarah, I’d sooner ride my bike!”. I do not feel that the advert is excluding me (as the photo is of a pro cyclist, I’m not a pro either!)
As for the comments about Cycletta, you’d be surprised how many men ride. No idea why but they’re there, complete with their numbers….