Italian bicycle brand Colnago has been accused of sexism after posting a photo to its social media accounts at the weekend showing a young woman, pictured from behind, leaning over one of its bikes.
The picture of the woman – who for some reason isn’t wearing shoes – was posted to Facebook on Saturday, with the caption: “Do you thought about where to ride this weekend? Or take the bike and go. Let us know your route, share your comments below.”
It was also posted to Twitter with a briefer caption, one with an unmistakable double entendre.
Ready for the weekend ride? pic.twitter.com/Whi63QiWN7
— Colnago (@Colnagoworld) October 23, 2015
Colnago certainly got comments – 145 of them on Facebook at the latest count – and while some were from men and laden with innuendo, many criticised the company for using the image.
One Facebook user, Sabrina Forbes, said: “As a woman cyclists and a former elite racer I will never buy one of your bikes! This is NOT the way to advertise your bikes or help promote women’s cycling!”
Another, Margo Hanson, commented: “Now that you mention it, I’d like to ride my bike to your marketing department and punch them in the face, but I can’t make it to Italy. So I guess you’re safe this time!”
Despite calls on Colnago to take the picture down, the post remains on Facebook and there have also been claims that the company has blocked users who complained about it.
Meredith Rainbow said in a comment: “Seriously, Colnago? This is still up? And you blocked Natalia Mendez for calling out your bullshit?
“First, you messed up by posting this misogynistic ridiculousness, now you make it worse with a piss-poor response. Just want to remind you of all the progressive, awesome cyclists (with disposable income) who will no longer consider purchasing from you. Ciao!”
Some users pointed out that the frame is much too big for the model, while Erin Young noted: “Thanks for being sexist pigs! Also the valve stems aren’t in the same position.”
Meanwhile, Matt Rohr posted a picture of the Wiggle Honda team, which rides Colnago bikes, and asked: “Hey Colnago. Is this what you would show to these women? Show the best way you can promote women’s cycling, by supporting women like this and not by posting degrading content about them.”
The picture was also posted to Twitter where it has attracted similar comments, with Reluctant Cyclist saying: “is that photo really the best you could come up with to illustrate a woman cyclist? #everydaysexism.”
East Yorkshire CTC tweeted: “Hey @Colnagoworld – AmazonPrime & the 1950s just called. They’d like Jeremy Clarkson back. (The bike you can keep.)”
Twitter user JD West meanwhile retweeted another picture from Colnago that showed a woman, dressed casually and not wearing cycling kit, crouching over a track pump with the caption, “need help?”
need help? pic.twitter.com/fCgdJMrzmA
— Colnago (@Colnagoworld) October 15, 2015
In an age when consumers can give companies and organisations instant feedback through social media, some will feel that Colnago has badly misjudged the mood of many of its potential customers – although its far from the first company in cycling to have been accused of sexism.
One such example came earlier this year when organisers of the E3 Harelbeke race in Belgium pulled a poster that had attracted criticism for being sexist and demeaning to women, with the UCI saying it was “extremely unhappy” with it.
– Sexist E3 Harelbeke poster to be pulled after UCI steps in
43 thoughts on “Colnago accused of sexism over social media posts”
“who for some reason isn’t
“who for some reason isn’t wearing shoes” Probably the photographer expected this photo to be cropped or otherwise edited.
No one has mentioned the way
No one has mentioned the way Assos advertise women’s clothes yet!
jasonbrim wrote:
Don’t they have an equally, scantilly clad bloke on offer as eye candy for the ladies too? Look at me assuming that male aye candy is only for the ladies and vice versa. Sorry.
jasonbrim wrote:
The same way they advertise the men section.
JorgeSilva wrote:
Still doesn’t mean it’s not sexist.
They way they portay men is embarassing, and the way they use women is why I refuse to buy their products.
long live Colnago. Thank God
long live Colnago. Thank God for Italians. If 200,000 people take professional offence against something on the internet, it doesnt matter, if that is a small fraction of those who see it.
they’ve apologised already:
they’ve apologised already:
https://www.facebook.com/Colnago/photos/a.371274209130.155416.368678269130/10153814320094131/?type=3&theater
It has always been that way.
So many people forget what real sexism is.
Jamminatrix wrote:
Perhaps you could remind us what *real* sexism is?
As always, being offended is
As always, being offended is fine, just don’t think it gives you the right to anything. It was dumb and people called them on it. Over.
I swear most of the guys posting outrage on this topic are just trying to prove to their girlfriends how evolved they are….with the faint hope of getting laid…..you know who you are.
Please forgive my total
Please forgive my total indifference to the image: don’t like what you see, move on. As far as I am aware, no one has been exploited and the woman in the picture was freely paid for her time and work, that to me is consensual but to describe it as outrageous and misogynistic is I am afraid projecting your own prejudices on to the image. Outrageous and misogynistic ? If that’s your starting point I think you should be looking at forced marriage and FGM as stronger candidates for your campaigning.
arfa wrote:
I want my daughters to grow up in a world where their bodies aren’t mere objects to dress up bikes. Reasonable people see through the reprehensibly dismissive BS people like you use (‘don’t like what you see? move on’) to condone the misogynistic status quo. You are the problem with women’s cycling and with women’s sport promotion in general. FGM and forced marriage are the extreme end of a spectrum that starts with ‘Phwoar look at the pair on that’. It’s not either/or, FFS. It all hurts, and particularly when girls are young and insecure. Anything and anyone that seeks to actively or subconsciously subjugate my daughters simply because their genitalia differs from men’s can Get In The Fucking Sea.
…and no, you don’t get to bleat that you didn’t mean any of the above and that it’s my fault for seeing it that way. Man up and stop treating women like shit.
KiwiMike wrote:
I want my daughters to grow up in a world where their bodies aren’t mere objects to dress up bikes. Reasonable people see through the reprehensibly dismissive BS people like you use (‘don’t like what you see? move on’) to condone the misogynistic status quo. You are the problem with women’s cycling and with women’s sport promotion in general. FGM and forced marriage are the extreme end of a spectrum that starts with ‘Phwoar look at the pair on that’. It’s not either/or, FFS. It all hurts, and particularly when girls are young and insecure. Anything and anyone that seeks to actively or subconsciously subjugate my daughters simply because their genitalia differs from men’s can Get In The Fucking Sea.
…and no, you don’t get to bleat that you didn’t mean any of the above and that it’s my fault for seeing it that way. Man up and stop treating women like shit.— arfa
^^^^ This!
Stop treating women as sexual tokens or Get In The Fucking Sea.
It must be a very difficult
It must be a very difficult world for you to live in Kiwi Mike and probably even harder for the women in your life who have to endure your puritanical views over what is permissible in your little world. There’s plenty of female imagery I disagree with but I am afraid a woman in cycling kit is not one of them. At no stage have I ever suggested “phwoar” is an appropriate response to the image, that is your narrow minded inference not my implication.
The women in my life, including my daughter (yes other people have them too Mike) are encouraged and balanced enough to form their own views thanks very much without someone else telling them what is acceptable, let alone a forum keyboard warrior.
As for the specific accusations that “I am the problem with women’s cycling”, I have nothing to do with women’s cycling and the women’s sport I am involved in, I have never had such a load of bullshit put at my doorstep, so perhaps you might like to reconsider your remarks in the cold light of day ? Your opinion that this is a sexualised image says more about you than anything else. Plenty of people manage to interact with women in sport who wear team clothing without in any way, shape or form sexualising the situation and with respect Mike, if you can’t cope with women in sports gear, you are the problem.
Seriously, get over yourself.
arfa wrote:
BINGO! You win the ‘I have daughters too’ defense to justify what you perceive as Someone Else’s Problem.
And obviously all the pro women cyclists who objected to the image, it’s Their Problem Too eh? What a world you live in, to be so misunderstood by so many people who just don’t understand your take on sexualised imagery.
Into The Sea with your attitude, Sir.
arfa wrote:
Of course it was a sexualised image. It’s got nothing to do with whether she was in cycling kit or not.
Do you ever see male pro cyclists posing like that?
“Hey Brad, can you just turn your arse to the camera? Yeah, that’s it, a bit more bum in the air please. Now, turn round and give us a a smile love, that’s it… *click*.”
(And with the caption ‘Ready for the weekend ride?’)
No, you don’t, you see men riding the bikes, racing the bikes, or just standing next to them.
If you don’t see it as a sexualised image, It’s just willful ignorance. You’ve decided to turn a blind eye to sexism.
And that’s exactly what it is. Sexism.
Cyclops, your suggestion
Cyclops, your suggestion that no male pro cyclist has ever posed suggestively is easily disabused by a quick Google search. I think you need a bit more balance to your argument.
arfa wrote:
So it’s only a sexist image if no male pro cyclist has ever posed in a suggestive manner?
arfa wrote:
Women are viewed as bits, men as a whole. Your argument in favour of ogling anonymous model’s T&A because Sagan has a lovely smile/guns doesn’t hold water.
http://www.livescience.com/21806-brain-male-female-objectification.html
“I want my daughters to grow
“I want my daughters to grow up in a world where their bodies aren’t mere objects to dress up bikes”: a little reminder of your earlier “bring your daughter into play comment” for Mike, perhaps you forgot.
Really gentlemen, as I stated earlier, there are far more meaningful areas to get involved in which may involve a little more emotional maturity to get involved with if you are unable to do so without resorting to childish playground insults because someone hold a different view to your own . So please get over yourselves and grow up.
Quote:
But it’s not just the photo on its own, is it? It’s the Benny Hiil comments that accompany.
I wager that you’d get a bit miffed at the neanderthals that would make “ride that” comments at any pictures of your daughter placed on the interweb. You’d struggle to move on in that case, wouldn’t you?
Don, a good point but as an
Don, a good point but as an adult, if she freely chose to pose in any kind of photo, I would be bound to respect her decision to do so.
arfa wrote:
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that the women in the ad shouldn’t be free to be photographed in any particular way, if she chooses too.
But that’s entierly differnent from — and has no relevance to — whether the resulting image and its use as an ad is sexism, or whether the brand objectified women.
arfa wrote:
You appear to be missing the point deliberately and not responding to the question. How would you feel about your daughter being objectified by strangers? You should, for the sake of your daughter, object to this kind of behaviour. It has nothing to do with whether has agreed to be photographed or not, it’s how the image is used and the reaction of others.
I guess that your acceptance of this objectification of people would make you guilty of sexism, or a troll. I’m going to go with troll on this one.
EDIT: Some of my best friends are women.
People seem to be ignoring
People seem to be ignoring the obvious here, what a picture, phwooooar, i would ride that hard!
alansmurphy wrote:
Very funny. And quite handily illustrates why that ad objectified women; we don’t know whether you are talking about the bike or not. Woman interhangeable with object = objectification.
Have you considered that i
Have you considered that i may not be hetrosexual, you have placed your perceptions and outdated beliefs of acceptable gender onto the issue. I am offended by your post and find your attitudes to gender and sexuality reprehensible.
I am also pleased with today’s internet fishing trip!
alansmurphy wrote:
Good day’s trolling then.
Although futile — it is still tempting to point out the fallacy of your argument…
*bait taken*
It doesn’t matter whether you are hetrosexual or not, or what your gender is. Your comment still highlights that, in the context of that advert, we don’t know if you are talking about a bike, or a woman. I.e. the ad objectifys women.
Indeed, small victories and
Indeed, small victories and all that.
However, i didn’t approach the thread with that intent, it was reading the sanctimonious drivel that was the motivating force.
I am now off to ensure that David Beckham’s pants are removed from adverts and the diet coke man is shot – it is the only way to ensure men receive equal opportunities…
Oops, only saw the preview on
Oops, only saw the preview on my phone.
Continuing with the bait, surely this tells us that any advert featuring a male or female is sexist, any advert featuring a child is abuse of power? In fact, all adverts have some sense of aspiration which is promoting materialism…
Maybe marketeers should be shot!
alansmurphy wrote:
Nope, it’s adverts that obejectify people — and it’s predominantly women — that are sexist.
I’m sure many would agree!
Bugger, sucked in now.
Bugger, sucked in now.
So Beckham advertising Armani is ok? In fact there’s a maltesers advert on tv at the moment where the woman put the maltesers where her nipples are and states something along the lines of ‘they are only interested in these’.
It works both ways.
Also, is anyone seriously stupid enough to purcahse a bike based on what model has been draped over it? Surely spec, budget, purpose even colour of frame would be more of a factor. In fact the likely person ‘modelling’ a bike that would attract me would be a pro rider that i had respect for…
Kiwi Mike, you state the
Kiwi Mike, you state the following:
“Your argument in favour of ogling anonymous model’s T&A because Sagan has a lovely smile/guns doesn’t hold water”.
Where have I argued in favour of that proposition? I think you’re being blinded by your own sanctimony there.
arfa wrote:
arfa wrote:
…As far as I am aware, no one has been exploited and the woman in the picture was freely paid for her time and work, that to me is consensual
…Don, a good point but as an adult, if she freely chose to pose in any kind of photo, I would be bound to respect her decision to do so.
arfa wrote:
…Cyclops, your suggestion that no male pro cyclist has ever posed suggestively is easily disabused by a quick Google search
And no, no male cyclist has ever ‘posed suggestively’ in a marketing spread. Not in a bending-over-come-fuck-me coquettish pose, not in bare feet, never.
Bored now. Go troll elsewhere.
Mike, you might want to read
Mike, you might want to read my comments again. I argued in favour of an individual’s freedom of choice as opposed to an inference (yours) that it is ogling, something which I am afraid on a simple understanding of the English language, I have neither explicitly or implicitly approved of, quite simply because I don’t. You seek to conflate an individual’s freedom of choice with sexism as you appear unable to cope with people exercising that freedom in a manner with which you disapprove. Let’s put it very clearly for you Mike, I might not like the outcome of someone’s decision to exercise their freedom of choice but I will defend their right to make that decision without patronising them with my own prejudices.
Perhaps one of my own prejudices is that I disapprove of those who hide behind the mask of feminism but use it to project their own illiberal views over what is right and wrong for women. That is repression, plain and simple and ultimately no different from the arguments advanced by repugnant theocracies to repress women.
So you carry on shouting loud and hard about an image used by a bike company, i’ll stick to issues that actually make an ounce of difference.
arfa wrote:
You’re putting up a straw-man. No one is arguing against the woman’s choice to have her photo taken.
But what you don’t seem to be grasping, however, is that it is enteirly irrelevant to whether the advertisment was sexist or not. It is the context in which an image is used that makes it sexist.
Wow!
Wow!
I think if you attach “come fuck me” to an image it says far more about you than anybody else. Might explain why you don’t want your daughter photographed…
The advert is either crap or
The advert is either crap or marketing genius.
I don’t like it and like most ,wouldn’t post the pic.
What’s annoying though is the faux indignant virtual ‘flash mobs’ overdramatic reaction at the drop of a bollock.
Its seems the men bothered by this are a parody of the hard done by women in their imagination (that in reality largely don’t exist.)
Your average woman on the street of any age would laugh at this picture as tacky rubbish.
Therefore the reaction is in some way a reverse insult. Also detrimental to tackling real sexism.
Xwheels wrote:
Bizarre.
We appear to be down an Ayn
We appear to be down an Ayn Rand-ian rabbithole of professed liberaller-than-thou men espousing why sexual images empower women.
I’m out.
KiwiMike wrote:
Just as we were getting there, nearly grasping that freedom of expression is far more than one’s own personal views. A pity.
Might not be, you could just
Might not be, you could just be a bit of a dick.
Kiwi, i am more of the
Kiwi, i am more of the opinion that there are people paid a lot of money to advertise unnecessary, aspirational materialism to people. Glamour, be it men, women or an apparently perfect family home all sell.
Sexism has to work both ways and also wider considerations than just gender need consideration. I am still unsure on how it can be deemed ‘offensive’ though…