Introduction
In this post I tackle the question of whether this bicycle
ad is sexist.
The ad in question, from Pinarello hawking their new Nytro electric-motor-assisted racing bike,
caused quite a stir on social media. In case you’re viewing this on a smart
watch, or hastily while driving (that was a joke, please don’t), the caption on
the ad says, “I’ve always wanted to go cycling with my [dickhead] boyfriend,
but it seemed impossible. Soon everything will become possible.”
(I added “dickhead” because even if this boyfriend is
stronger, he should be happy to slow down a bit to ride with his girlfriend. I
am a former and occasional racer but I love riding with my wife and daughters
no matter what kind of workout this gives me.)
Christine Majerus, a female pro cyclist, responded (via
Twitter), “The only thing highly possible is that I am going to drop every
single Pinarello rider from now on, even @chrisfroome if needed #PinarellNO.”
The husband of the women’s WorldTour champ Megan Guarnier tweeted, “I’ve always
wanted to cycle with my wife, @MeganGuarnier , but she drops me like a rock so
I follow in the car. Soon everything will be possible. #pinarellNO.” Another
pro, a Frenchwoman, wrote, “C’est quoi ce bordel?!” which I roughly translate,
“What the hell is this?!”
I was particularly tickled by this suggested improvement on
the ad campaign:
So, is the ad sexist?
To start off, I think it’s dangerous to position myself as
an authority on sexism, particularly since I’m a guy. It’s a little easier to
brush off somebody’s misconduct when you’re not the victim of it. The results
of a Metro magazine poll about the above ad support this idea:
Granted, this is just one poll, but its conclusion is
dramatic: women are twice as likely as men to think the ad was sexist. Clearly,
women are still the hysterical, emotionally fragile drama queens they’ve always
been. KIDDING! Fear not, I’m as
grossed out by this statistic as you ought to be. In fact, the visceral
reaction I had to the poll made it difficult not to reduce this post to a
single word: “yes.”
Obviously, that wouldn’t be a very persuasive blog post, and
moreover, there were lots of comments below the cyclingnews article that ought to be addressed. Not because they’re thoughtful statements made by
reasonable people, of course; most of them, needless to say, are not. But in
this modern era where all kinds of people automatically take umbrage at the
very idea of political correctness, those of us who had to look up the terms
“snowflake” and “SJW” ought to stick up for ourselves.
(What is a “snowflake?” Urbandictionary defines it as either
“A hypersensitive, irrational person who can’t stand to have their world views
challenged, or be offended in any perceived or even slightest of ways,” or “Referring
to someone, usually the Alt-Right, Yiannopoulos, and Nazi Sympathizers (A.K.A.
ARYANS), whose immense white fragility causes a meltdown when confronted with
the most minute deviation from orthodox White Supremacy.” Meanwhile, “SJW”
stands for “social justice warrior” and is used pejoratively. Both these terms
seem to be favorites among the Internet whiners who whine about other people’s
whining.)
Some other opinions
Since I don’t feel I can be a standalone authority on
whether the ad is sexist, I asked my teenage daughters and my wife. My wife
replied, “What? Huh? Oh ... I haven’t been listening.” (I made the mistake of
starting my question with a little background, which included the word “bicycle.”
It’s been a long marriage. Especially for her.) My younger daughter replied, “Seriously?
Uh ... yeah!” (She did not actually
use the word “duh,” but it was strongly implied by her tone.) My older daughter
said, “Give me a second. I’m deciding whether the ad is heteronormative. I don’t
think it is. Definitely sexist, though.”
To get the perspective of an older generation, I showed the
ad to my mom and asked what she thought. Mom didn’t have an automatic problem
with the idea that the electric bike could help a slower woman keep up, but she
bristled at the wording of the ad: “I’ve always wanted to go cycling with my
boyfriend but it seemed impossible.” The word “impossible” she took particular
issue with—it struck her as defeatist that a woman would assume there was no
way she could ever match the fitness of her boyfriend. Men may tend, on
average, to have greater God-given strength, but surely the gap isn’t insurmountable.
(I have personal experience with this as an assistant coach of my daughter’s
high school mountain bike team. Lots of girls routinely drop lots of guys, and
the guys have been very cool about not roaring a terrible macho roar, making
stupid BS excuses, or quitting in a huff.)
What’s particularly interesting is that both the ad agency
that created the ad, and Pinarello, who paid for it and ran it, didn’t seem to
think this ad was sexist—until this was pointed out to them all over the place
and they issued an apology.
I don’t buy the idea, suggested by numerous Internet
commentators, that this flap was all contrived in advance for free publicity.
These wannabe pundits cited the old adage, “There’s no such thing as bad
publicity.” Yeah, right. Just ask the guys who promoted the Ford Edsel, or,
more recently, the ignoramuses behind the racist Dove ad that backfired. I can’t imagine any company runs an ad that it hopes to have to apologize
for.
So how did Pinarello get this so completely wrong? Probably
a lot of men at the ad agency thought there was nothing wrong with implying
that a man might need an electric motor because he has “no time to work out
during the week” (the text from their ad featuring a male) whereas a woman
needs a motor just because she’s a woman. And when a bunch of men at Pinarello
looked at the ad they didn’t see anything wrong with this disparity either.
Why? Because they’re men. Stupid ones. (Okay, it’s possible that sexist women
were involved, but the poll I cited earlier suggests this is only half as
likely.)
There’s a big difference between these clueless types and
the angry males making comments such as “Never apologize! That’s when the
feminazis think they’ve won,” and “I doubt if the young gals can afford the
6,000 euros without the help of their boyfriends.” But the non-aggressive,
passively clueless types are a big part of the problem. They’re controlling
budgets and influencing public perception (not to mention creating situations
that inflame outspoken misogynists) without realizing that they’re harboring
antiquated, unfair attitudes toward women. They apparently never got the memo
that women don’t want to be patronized or coddled.
Why none of this matters
Of course sexism matters. It should be fought on every front. But the Pinarello Nytro doesn’t matter
whatsoever. It’s a completely stupid bike, and here’s why.
First of all, the Nytro is not going to help riders of
differing abilities to enjoy riding together. Its motor puts out up to 400
watts, which is enough to drop a pretty decent club racer on a long climb
without even pedaling. But the motor cuts out when the bike reaches 25 km per
hour (about 15.5 mph), which is a lower speed than the club racer can easily
sustain on the flats. So on climbs, the weaker rider on the Nytro will crush
the stronger one on the regular bike, and then on the flats the stronger rider
on the regular bike will exact revenge. In the case of a couple, this looks
like a recipe for disaster. (I’d love to watch this play out, actually.)
Second, almost anybody serious enough about cycling to drop
$7,000 on a racing bike is going to want to earn
the glory of dropping people, rather than claim the empty victory of “beating”
somebody through a totally unfair equipment advantage. (The existing
differences from a basic bike to a top-end bike are not anywhere in the
ballpark of 400 watts.) Real cyclists want to improve, not outsource their
ability to a motor. Naturally there are filthy rich douchebags who might love
the idea of this bike, but they’ll surely sour on it when real cyclists crush
them on the flats.
Where Pinarello ought to put their R&D money is into motor-assisted
commuting bikes. Think of all the people who don’t commute by bicycle because
they don’t want to get to work all hot and sweaty, and/or don’t want to tackle
that one big hill on the way home. Giving an electric boost to a basic bicycle—or,
if you prefer, putting out a new kind of electric scooter that you can easily
carry up the stairs to your apartment, and/or bring on the train—is a great way
to get more people commuting by bike. According to this article, there are already 200 million e-bikes
in China. Why would Pinarello go after the impossibly small niche of shameless rich
douchebags who want electric racing bikes, instead of serving a legitimate societal
need?
More food for thought
I hope that I’ve made a strong case for Pinarello and their
ad agency being sexist. But here’s a thornier question: is it sexist if a guy
on a bike team, upon seeing his male teammate roll up on a Nytro, calls him a “little
bitch”? I will leave this question for the reader to ponder.
--~--~--~--~--~--~--~---~--
A pal read this and e-mailed me, "Using 'douchebag' as a pejorative (twice ) kinda proves your point about the perils of a guy writing about sexism." I was actually hoping somebody would take issue with that. I cover that question ("is 'douchebag' as pejorative term sexist?") at length here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.albertnet.us/2016/04/more-cycling-commentary-is-this-poster.html