Three Men Walk Into a Chat Room
Three white males have just finished a discussion about professional sports, past experience, technology and what it means to build an audience. Two of these men are hosts of a talk show, one is their guest. As the first guest signs off, the next arrives, to much fanfare; he is an enigma, a black man celebrated for his status in a field dominated by white men. He is treated as somewhat of a curiosity, but is shown every hospitality and the respect due to his stature.
Before the conclusion of the segment, however, a second black man is paraded in. He is also a curiosity in the field, and is verbally poked and prodded in much the same fashion as the first, though now with less sensitivity, perhaps.
This talk show segment has gone from what may reasonably be perceived as an interview to a spectacle of difference. The subjects are celebrated for their novelty value; the hosts clearly do not know how to approach them in an adult manner, so they don’t.
Tour Chats
A scenario similar to this played out on Neil Browne’s Tour Chats, when an interview that was clearly intended to celebrate the internet character that is @mmmakio devolved into a panel that could rightly have been called “Asian Girls of Cycling” after @mplsminx showed up. The hosts seemed excited to have her, but once they did, they clearly had no idea what to do or say. Predictably, the hosts and the participating audience fell back on cherished cliche’s and double entendres.
All in Good Fun
So what is the problem with this if it’s all in good fun? The problem is that professional cycling, like much of the media landscape, is dominated by white males. It is a problem if the same people who openly criticize promoters for unequal pay in women’s racing use their privileged place in the media to unknowingly frame something that they are uncomfortable with (gender, race, difference) as a curiosity.
Karl Marx defined ideology with his famous quote “they don’t know it, but they are doing it,” and that is precisely what is happening here. No one is trying to marginalize women or asians as being different, but we are. When we ask women stupid, shallow questions and fall back on sexual innuendo when we don’t know what else to say, we reinforce that hegemony.
Something to Gain, Something to Lose
I’ve noticed a marked change in the electronically connected cycling fans that show up in my twitter feed. So-called “Snark” is all the rage, perhaps understandably so, since a sincere approach to cycling commentary or fandom will almost certainly end in failure. Relentless irony combined with the desire to promote one’s point of view, one’s blog, one’s self, have left a once contentious community hobbled and reluctant to say anything approaching the level of honesty that was present when the anti-doping movement was at its peak.
The pro cycling peanut gallery now suffers from the same condition as those in the professional peloton; they have a stake. It shows in everything, even that familiar point of view. They don’t know they’re doing it, but I can see it.
I couldnt disagree more. First off, the prior 2 weeks to this weeks tour chats; Ali Starnes and Evie Stevens were on in successive weeks, and they were treated respectfully and still had some good fun. The self promotion aspect that Neil is doing comes from the fact that he lost his regular gig because he stood up to Armstrong as part of the anti-doping backlash from fans. If you dont promote a niche cycling site in a niche sport in the US market, however will the sport and fan base grow?
Second, MMMaiko brings no claim of serious cycling positioning, she’s a fan who brings sexuality into the equation as part of her online calling card. Her twitter account even says “kiegels world champion” on it. As for Mplsminx, while she has a more serious cycling pedigree, she’s far more well know for her “bangable dudes in pro cycling” blog, and open online application and active positioning to be made a podium girl, the very height of cycling female objectification. Neither woman was treated disrespectfully in light of the position they chose.
I think the only reason you think theres less honesty right now is, because frankly, theres less to say right now. The fans feel a bit powerless with the UCI continuing to do its level best to keep the status quo, and the armstrong investigation dragging on. The snark is our way of dealing with the wait before we get the changes we want. No less honesty, just less activity.
the snark is getting old. beating of a dead horse over the same dead jokes. i didn’t hear this particular tour chat, but it sounds as if your take is spot on given their “twitter personalities”. most female cycling twitter personas attempt to utilize their sex for attention. too bad they can’t be like @festinagirl and have a real opinion and insight. one step forward, two steps back.
You can’t control the topic of conversation on social media. It is a beast all its own, and it doesn’t belong to you. You can throw your opinion in the mix. You can even call out an individual and ask them their opinion on contentious topics. Try to drive the conversations that you want in that fashion. This, however, was ridiculous. I’m a week and a half late in seeing the Tour Chats that this applies to, but given the twitter dialogue coming from you, I expected far worse than what I saw.
As always, I have a huge respect for your opinion. I cannot think through a topic with the same depth as yourself. However, in this circumstance I wholly disagree.