Outdoor Research spoofs 'sexist' GQ climbing-based photoshoot

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 SenzuBean 29 Sep 2016

http://blog.thedyrt.com/camp/week-gq-published-sexist-climbing-piece-outdoor-research-stepped-perfect-response/

Brilliant. I don't normally find these types of things clever (they're usually a bit hamfisted), but this one was really clever and hilarious.

The good shots start about halfway through the article.
Post edited at 17:52
3
 KP 29 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Yes! We had a good laugh at work about this. The phrase 'some cute friends' made me cringe horribly, and the sheer expense of some of those clothes is astonishing! Always great to see strong women putting sexist sport articles in their place.
1
 Alyson 29 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

I saw this the other day - extremely funny! To me, the GQ article sounded so ludicrous that if I'd have read it on its own I'd have thought it was a spoof.
 angry pirate 29 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Thanks for sharing that. The GQ article is so archaic in its point of view it beggars belief. Is it usually like this?
Good job OR for lampooning it, stuff like this shouldn't go unchallenged.
1
 buzby 29 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

that is very good and very funny, Jesus there s a jumper in there at over 3 thousand dollars. it looks rank as well.
 JMarkW 29 Sep 2016
In reply to buzby:

Does anyone actually buy these magazines anymore?

Cheers
Mark
 Greasy Prusiks 29 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Brilliant. What a way to stick it to the stupid f*ckers.
2
In reply to SenzuBean:

It is very well done. I contacted the GQ Editor for a comment in vain. Can't say I'm surprised!
1
 winhill 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> It is very well done. I contacted the GQ Editor for a comment in vain. Can't say I'm surprised!

What would you expect them to say?

It's a men's magazine written for men.

The clothes are ludicrously expensive but even the Guardian showcases ludicrously expensive (usually women's) fashion.

Good old Comso had this in August:

"36 of the Greatest Summer Olympic Bulges
These peens deserve the gold.
By Lauren Adhav
Aug 03, 2016

These peens deserve gold! Consider this just the beginning of this summer's Olympic bulge coverage here at Cosmo, and please let us know if we've missed anything major happening in an athlete's pants."

With a 36 photo gallery.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/g5982/best-biggest-olympic-bulges/?

But so what? Cosmo is a magazine for women.

All we're left with is agonised irrationalisations about how it's different for wimmin or condemnations of any kind of gendered expression that drives a New Puritanism.

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/uncategorised/objectifying-men-why-saying-a-ma...
8
 Yanis Nayu 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

I can't see what the fuss is about tbh. It's a fashion magazine, it's bound to be a load of bollocks.

It's good to see Outdoor Research are on the case though. I'm sure they'll be heading to Afghanistan next to ensure girls get an education.
21
 Mike Highbury 29 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean: I preferred the GQ article, less forced and I think I might buy the stripey jumper.
3
Masquerade 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I can't see what the fuss is about tbh. It's a fashion magazine, it's bound to be a load of bollocks.

Quite right. They shouldn't be held to any standard whatsoever. I think racism and homophobia should also go unchallenged, as long as they're in fashion magazines.

> It's good to see Outdoor Research are on the case though. I'm sure they'll be heading to Afghanistan next to ensure girls get an education.

And I'm sure that in the future when an educated Afghan woman stands up to sexism in her own country's media you'll be on hand to tell her that there's worse sexism somewhere else so she shouldn't worry her pretty little head about it.
9
 Big Ger 30 Sep 2016
 Alyson 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Well lots of people find it funny. If you don't, that doesn't mean it isn't funny.

And nowhere is there a claim that Outdoor Research are the first people in the history of humanity to recreate photographs as a spoof. Hey, guess what? Climbing rocks isn't exactly original either! What is your point exactly?
4
In reply to SenzuBean:

> “Daniel Woods Gets Horizontal: Sweater, $795
> “Sam Elias Makes It Look Easy: Sweater-vest, $1,230
> “Jimmy Chin, Adventure Visionary: Vest, $3,395

I think Daniel lucked out. He got a sleeves AND it was the cheapest... Winner!!

LOL, utterly ridiculous.
 Big Ger 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Alyson:

Just giving my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
9
Masquerade 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Just giving my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Just giving my negative opinion about an article spoofing gender stereotyping. The fact that I have only ever given a negative opinion of anything which challenges sexism is purely coincidental and in no way way indicates that I may actually have an agenda. I absolutely, definitely and categorically do not need to put women down to feel good about myself.

8
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> I contacted the GQ Editor for a comment in vain

That's a surprise; I'm sure GQ's editor (like most of its readers) is incredibly vain...
2
 Big Ger 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Masquerade:
> Just giving my negative opinion about an article spoofing gender stereotyping. The fact that I have only ever given a negative opinion of anything which challenges sexism is purely coincidental and in no way way indicates that I may actually have an agenda. I absolutely, definitely and categorically do not need to put women down to feel good about myself.

Bravo for you mate!

I thought it unfunny, and just a plagiarism. So, are we not allowed to find things unfunny, are we not allowed our own taste in humour these days?

PS. If you can find an example of anyone "putting down women in order to feel good about myself" on this forum, I'll be heartily surprised.

But passive aggressive 'playing the man not the ball" is so de rigueur, and wholly acceptable, to a section of the membership here, is it not.
Post edited at 11:41
16
 GHawksworth 30 Sep 2016
2
 Big Ger 30 Sep 2016
In reply to GHawksworth:

And here's another...
8
 gethin_allen 30 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

All the GQ article says to me is that I'm in the wrong business, $800+ for a jumper $3900 for a bizarre waistcoat type thing. You'd only need to sell one every month or so and you'd be on a winner.

I'm off to cut up the curtains to make some styling "Pants" which I'll be selling for £1,200. As a nod to UKC giving me the inspiration for my business I'm offering a 20% discount to members.
 Yanis Nayu 30 Sep 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:

> All the GQ article says to me is that I'm in the wrong business, $800+ for a jumper $3900 for a bizarre waistcoat type thing. You'd only need to sell one every month or so and you'd be on a winner.

> I'm off to cut up the curtains to make some styling "Pants" which I'll be selling for £1,200. As a nod to UKC giving me the inspiration for my business I'm offering a 20% discount to members.

Aren't they called "pant"?
 FactorXXX 30 Sep 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:

I'm off to cut up the curtains to make some styling "Pants" which I'll be selling for £1,200. As a nod to UKC giving me the inspiration for my business I'm offering a 20% discount to members.

You'd have to be a right member to pay that much for a pair of pants!
OP SenzuBean 30 Sep 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> That's a surprise; I'm sure GQ's editor (like most of its readers) is incredibly vain...

Beat me to it
I was going to say almost the same thing
1
 Yanis Nayu 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Masquerade:

> Quite right. They shouldn't be held to any standard whatsoever. I think racism and homophobia should also go unchallenged, as long as they're in fashion magazines.

> And I'm sure that in the future when an educated Afghan woman stands up to sexism in her own country's media you'll be on hand to tell her that there's worse sexism somewhere else so she shouldn't worry her pretty little head about it.

You've extrapolated a bit far there. The GQ article was, in my opinion, mildly sexist and majorly shite (the latter being no more than one would expect). Whether it warranted the amount of effort OR went to in order to "call them out" is debatable, as is how humorous it was (I thought it was a bit lame). I find it a bit weird that when people do what OR did they get major hero points for it, when in reality they're fiddling while Rome burns, especially on a global scale. I think prioritisation is important; you don't.

One thing that is for sure, and I can't see how it could be argued any other way, is that the Cosmo article is much more sexist and offensive than the GQ one. At least the models were willing participants in the GQ shoot; the blokes in the Cosmo article weren't.

Mind you, I seem to be on the other side of the debate to Alyson, which always leaves me thinking I'm probably wrong...
4
Masquerade 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> PS. If you can find an example of anyone "putting down women in order to feel good about myself" on this forum, I'll be heartily surprised.

> But passive aggressive 'playing the man not the ball" is so de rigueur, and wholly acceptable, to a section of the membership here, is it not.

Apologies. I was getting you mixed up with Stroppygob – that other Cornish by way of Australia bloke (weird how much you have in common now I think about it). You know who I mean? The one who got banned for sexist comments. The one who got in an argument with a female poster about objectification in the workplace and told her she must be ugly. Luckily those threads are long gone. Sorry, you must be so offended at me getting you two confused!
1
 FactorXXX 30 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Shock, horror, a men's magazine features sexist content: -
http://blog.thedyrt.com/camp/week-gq-published-sexist-climbing-piece-outdoo...

Shock, horror, a women's magazine features sexist content: -
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/g5982/best-biggest-olympic-bulges/?
3
Removed User 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I'm sure they'll be heading to Afghanistan next

I think some of their stuff's already there.
Masquerade 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> You've extrapolated a bit far there. The GQ article was, in my opinion, mildly sexist and majorly shite (the latter being no more than one would expect). Whether it warranted the amount of effort OR went to in order to "call them out" is debatable, as is how humorous it was (I thought it was a bit lame). I find it a bit weird that when people do what OR did they get major hero points for it, when in reality they're fiddling while Rome burns, especially on a global scale. I think prioritisation is important; you don't.

I think they went to the effort for the good PR and the likelihood of lots of social media shares as well as the challenge to the lazy sexism. I’m sure it was worth putting the effort in. People will only share and talk about it if it’s done well, and parodying the shiteness of the GQ article is part of why the joke works. I don’t believe Rome is burning. Yes some places are going backwards in terms of women’s rights but globally a lot is improving. It’s not about ‘prioritisation’ though – you talk as if by producing this article, OR have neglected to do important work on ending FGM! If someone were to discriminate against me because of my gender, I don’t have to ignore it because I should be prioritising girls’ education in Afghanistan

> One thing that is for sure, and I can't see how it could be argued any other way, is that the Cosmo article is much more sexist and offensive than the GQ one. At least the models were willing participants in the GQ shoot; the blokes in the Cosmo article weren't.

The media is awash with body-shaming, stereotyping and objectification. Pulling out an example of male objectification doesn’t a) stop the first article being sexist or b) make it ok to be sexist.
4
In reply to winhill:
I honestly didn't expect them to say anything. I am aware that this sort of material is pervasive in numerous publications worldwide, but I don't have time to scrutinise every article out there. This particular case seemed like an opportunity to use our typically forward-thinking climbing community to at least make a small effort to show the mainstream media that times are changing and that many climbers don't want media related to our activities to be presented in this way.

Whether you look to GQ for gender equality or not is to miss the point, though - even if it's not expected, it shouldn't be accepted. The fact that the article was written for men makes it even more pertinent as topic of contention, after all - equality involves both genders and men have a crucial role in working towards it. I wouldn't take issue with the piece if top female climbers were used instead of models, whose purpose in this article is to accessorize the males and merely bolster their success. It's the deliberate juxtaposition of successful male climbers with non-climbing models reduced to 'cute friends' that grates; it's not a question of whether the models were willing to take part in the shoot as some have suggested elsewhere. It's the editor's portrayal of the women that is being questioned.

The images made me cringe before I had even read the sentence confirming my initial reaction in the writer's comically candid standfirst: 'three premier climbers and a couple of cute friends'. They're so numb to this degrading representation of women that a sentence like that can roll off their tongue. It's not acceptable.

I completely agree that the articles you link to are undignified. I don't agree that it's acceptable to objectify men. However, according to the definition of sexism, the article about the Olympics - despite being horribly tacky - would not be considered sexist as women lack the institutional power to systematise their prejudice against men. Personally, though, I still find it degrading and inappropriate.

I do find it interesting, however, that when a man is objectified it rarely denies him his subjectivity. He retains his status as a sportsperson/successful career man. Often when women are objectified, her achievements and professional status are overlooked. Objectification is often more 'reductive' for women and often has wider implications.

The concept of 'situation' shaping a person's experience in the world is fascinating. 'The Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir offers an eye-opening explanation of situation and the patriarchy, immanence/transcendence, subject/object relations in a biological, social and historical context.

It's not helpful to pit genders against each other and I dislike advocates of 'feminism' who work towards superiority over men, rather than equality. Beauvoir pointed out that humankind is flawed in its attempt to divide men and women, as each entity is essential to the other in terms of reproduction and there is no justification for the inferior position of women, despite indisputable biological differences. Social conditioning with all its injustices throughout history have contributed to women's situation today, with Beauvoir concluding that 'One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.'

I don't suspect Outdoor Research will be travelling to Afghanistan anytime soon, but they've likely encouraged the climbing community to continue working towards better representation for women in sports media as climbing gains more attention from mainstream outlets. You only have to look at downhill mountain biking and surfing to see that it can be an uphill struggle. If we perpetuate these misrepresentations, it only serves to hinder women's participation in sport and damage decades of gradual progress.

One step at a time.
Post edited at 14:26
4
 John_Hat 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Masquerade:

> The media is awash with body-shaming, stereotyping and objectification. Pulling out an example of male objectification doesn’t a) stop the first article being sexist or b) make it ok to be sexist.

This ^
3
 bouldery bits 30 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Have you seen those prices?????

$125 for a thermarest!

Jeez...
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> I wouldn't take issue with the piece if top female climbers were used instead of models, whose purpose in this article is to accessorize the males and merely bolster their success. It's the deliberate juxtaposition of successful male climbers with non-climbing models reduced to 'cute friends' that grates; it's not a question of whether the models were willing to take part in the shoot as some have suggested elsewhere. It's the editor's portrayal of the women that is being questioned

and this ^

Pretty girls purely as accessories. Just like the overpriced, shiny trinket status symbols and ugly clothing the magazine advertises.
1
 Mike Stretford 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:


> Whether you look to GQ for gender equality or not is to miss the point, though - even if it's not expected, it shouldn't be accepted. The fact that the article was written for men makes it even more pertinent as topic of contention, after all - equality involves both genders and men have a crucial role in working towards it. I wouldn't take issue with the piece if top female climbers were used instead of models, whose purpose in this article is to accessorize the males and merely bolster their success. It's the deliberate juxtaposition of successful male climbers with non-climbing models reduced to 'cute friends' that grates; it's not a question of whether the models were willing to take part in the shoot as some have suggested elsewhere. It's the editor's portrayal of the women that is being questioned.

I don't think the problem is that the women are non-climbers, non-climbing girlfriends taking the odd trip to the crag with their boyfriends is a reality and obviously isn't sexist, it would be artificial to ban that from ever being portrayed. It's the obvious objectification of the women in the last few shots that makes the article worthy of ridicule. Great PR for Outdoor Research and the climbing brands mentioned in the original GQ article might be a bit annoyed.

 Yanis Nayu 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Masquerade:

> I think they went to the effort for the good PR and the likelihood of lots of social media shares as well as the challenge to the lazy sexism. I’m sure it was worth putting the effort in. People will only share and talk about it if it’s done well, and parodying the shiteness of the GQ article is part of why the joke works. I don’t believe Rome is burning. Yes some places are going backwards in terms of women’s rights but globally a lot is improving. It’s not about ‘prioritisation’ though – you talk as if by producing this article, OR have neglected to do important work on ending FGM! If someone were to discriminate against me because of my gender, I don’t have to ignore it because I should be prioritising girls’ education in Afghanistan

I don't disagree, I think what I find a little irritating is my perception, rightly or wrongly, that what OR have done is a bit cynical, which you kind of allude to, by cashing-in on the good PR without really tackling a difficult issue - it reminds me a bit of that kind of slacktivism I think it's called, where people think they're solving the world's ills by holding up a piece of cardboard with #slogan on it and sticking it on Twitter. I agree the GQ article has a whiff of sexism about it, as well as being complete shite. I guess they need male models to model clothes for men, then try and dress it up with some attractive women to make men more likely to look. Would have been better to have the women doing something impressive themselves, but it's not unusual to use beautiful people of both sexes almost like decoration. There's an argument that at least the women in question were getting paid as models, and I suspect they're not complaining. I dunno.

> The media is awash with body-shaming, stereotyping and objectification. Pulling out an example of male objectification doesn’t a) stop the first article being sexist or b) make it ok to be sexist.

I agree. But I think similar standards should apply.

 Robert Durran 30 Sep 2016
In reply to buzby:
> That is very good and very funny, Jesus there s a jumper in there at over 3 thousand dollars. it looks rank as well.

Yes, even setting aside the sexism, the selling out to the evils of the fashion industry was disturbing.

Though it has to be said that some of the clothes in the spoof looked a bit wanky too. Stuff more authentically scummy and dossy would have been better; personally, I thought the spoof was a bit lame (certainly not particularly funny) even if well intentioned.
Post edited at 17:57
 Yanis Nayu 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> I honestly didn't expect them to say anything. I am aware that this sort of material is pervasive in numerous publications worldwide, but I don't have time to scrutinise every article out there. This particular case seemed like an opportunity to use our typically forward-thinking climbing community to at least make a small effort to show the mainstream media that times are changing and that many climbers don't want media related to our activities to be presented in this way.

> Whether you look to GQ for gender equality or not is to miss the point, though - even if it's not expected, it shouldn't be accepted. The fact that the article was written for men makes it even more pertinent as topic of contention, after all - equality involves both genders and men have a crucial role in working towards it. I wouldn't take issue with the piece if top female climbers were used instead of models, whose purpose in this article is to accessorize the males and merely bolster their success. It's the deliberate juxtaposition of successful male climbers with non-climbing models reduced to 'cute friends' that grates; it's not a question of whether the models were willing to take part in the shoot as some have suggested elsewhere. It's the editor's portrayal of the women that is being questioned.

> The images made me cringe before I had even read the sentence confirming my initial reaction in the writer's comically candid standfirst: 'three premier climbers and a couple of cute friends'. They're so numb to this degrading representation of women that a sentence like that can roll off their tongue. It's not acceptable.

> I completely agree that the articles you link to are undignified. I don't agree that it's acceptable to objectify men. However, according to the definition of sexism, the article about the Olympics - despite being horribly tacky - would not be considered sexist as women lack the institutional power to systematise their prejudice against men. Personally, though, I still find it degrading and inappropriate.

I don't agree that it's not sexist. I don't think you can say on average men have more power in society so they can't be victims of sexism, because it's quite possible that men can be disadvantaged in situations where women do have a concentration of power (in certain workplaces for example which have more females at the top than men) and those females who see articles like the Cosmo one can be just as influenced as in the reverse situation. Plus, if society is moving to equality, why accept stuff like that going forward? Although, to be fair my main objection to it is that it's just a f*cking horrible thing to do.

> I do find it interesting, however, that when a man is objectified it rarely denies him his subjectivity. He retains his status as a sportsperson/successful career man. Often when women are objectified, her achievements and professional status are overlooked. Objectification is often more 'reductive' for women and often has wider implications.

Ask Linford Christie..Also, I'm not sure you're right. I think there's a degree of interpretation applied to that.

> The concept of 'situation' shaping a person's experience in the world is fascinating. 'The Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir offers an eye-opening explanation of situation and the patriarchy, immanence/transcendence, subject/object relations in a biological, social and historical context.

You've lost me)

> It's not helpful to pit genders against each other and I dislike advocates of 'feminism' who work towards superiority over men, rather than equality.

Totally agree. We all occupy the same planet.

Beauvoir pointed out that humankind is flawed in its attempt to divide men and women, as each entity is essential to the other in terms of reproduction and there is no justification for the inferior position of women, despite indisputable biological differences.

Agree.

Social conditioning with all its injustices throughout history have contributed to women's situation today, with Beauvoir concluding that 'One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.'

I don't understand this.

> I don't suspect Outdoor Research will be travelling to Afghanistan anytime soon, but they've likely encouraged the climbing community to continue working towards better representation for women in sports media as climbing gains more attention from mainstream outlets. You only have to look at downhill mountain biking and surfing to see that it can be an uphill struggle. If we perpetuate these misrepresentations, it only serves to hinder women's participation in sport and damage decades of gradual progress.

> One step at a time.

It's an interesting discussion. Finally, can we adopt some common ground and all agree that fashion is a load of bollocks?
 FreshSlate 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
> I completely agree that the articles you link to are undignified. I don't agree that it's acceptable to objectify men. However, according to the definition of sexism, the article about the Olympics - despite being horribly tacky - would not be considered sexist as women lack the institutional power to systematise their prejudice against men. Personally, though, I still find it degrading and inappropriate.

What definition is that?

Most places (Oxford, Merriam, Cambridge Wiki) seem to define it as, "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

It's not widely or informally accepted that sexism can only exist where there is the intitutional power to systematise prejudice. It appears you want to say that men cannot be the victim of sexism (in our society) but if you're changing the definiton of sexism at the same time you're muddling the point.
Post edited at 20:55
4
 Big Ger 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Masquerade:
> Apologies. I was getting you mixed up with Stroppygob £ that other Cornish by way of Australia bloke (weird how much you have in common now I think about it). You know who I mean? The one who got banned for sexist comments. The one who got in an argument with a female poster about objectification in the workplace and told her she must be ugly. Luckily those threads are long gone. Sorry, you must be so offended at me getting you two confused!

Lucky indeed, or you'd be proved wrong.

So strange, and quite pathological, to hold onto anger from such a long time ago, about an issue which wasn't about you and did not involve you.

However, it's quite scary that you feel so offended by my not finding something funny that you need to heap vitriol, and drag up half remembered issues from years past. Lord help us if you ever have to confront a real issue.

I'll try to ensure in future that I find everything you laugh at funny.

To quote the immortal Dr Abbott; "There's enough material there for an entire conference."
Post edited at 21:57
13
 Eki 30 Sep 2016
In reply to buzby:

Yeah, and Jimmy Chin goes chimney climbing wearing one...
In reply to Big Ger:

> So strange, and quite pathological, to hold onto anger from such a long time ago, about an issue which wasn't about you and did not involve you

Or, to put it another way, to simply remember that you can be a bit of a cock, based on the things you have posted over time.
1
 Big Ger 01 Oct 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:
Oh I don't deny that. But why bring it up here and now, what does that actually achieve, (apart from spoiling the thread.)

Why attack someone personally for daring to have an opinion?

In case you've forgotten, this is all I said about the OP;

> Not exactly original, or funny, is it?

I'm happy for that to be challenged and more than happy to give my reasons for my thoughts.

But why does someone who I have not addressed in this thread, (or ever as far as I know,) get so butt hurt by my daring to hold that view, that they drag up some imagined nonsense form many years ago to personally attack me.

It's, as I say, pathological, if not verging on the obsessive, definitely not healthy in any way.

Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, if "Masquerade " wants to post that way it says far more about her/him than it does about me. (Rest assured I will highlight that too. )
Post edited at 00:20
8
 bouldery bits 01 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I'm Spartacus!
 Martin W 03 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I thought it unfunny, and just a plagiarism.

Go look up "plagiarism" in a dictionary. Then compare it to the definition of "parody". Then take a pause to reflect.
2
 ben b 03 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Oh I don't deny that.

but also

> ... that they drag up some imagined nonsense form many years ago to personally attack me.

Erm - imagined or actual?

As the ever sensible Captain Paranoia points out, you have 'form' that taints your responses and makes it fairly predictable that your unexciting "neither funny nor original" comment gets more of a reaction than it deserves as of itself. You make your bed and you lie in it; a shame because on occasions I think you make good points (although often well hidden!). And making comments about personal attacks when you have been banned for making personal attacks seems a little... sanctimonious.

Still, back to the thread. I'm glad to see OR taking the piss out of a big publication, and entirely appropriately. Sadly I doubt many GQ readers will ever see it (or indeed understand why it has been parodied) but that in itself doesn't invalidate it. Think of the rack that you could build with the $3k for a vest that must cost about 15 of that to make...

b











1
 Big Ger 03 Oct 2016
In reply to Martin W:

> Go look up "plagiarism" in a dictionary. Then compare it to the definition of "parody". Then take a pause to reflect.

Look up the number of times spoof parody photos mocking such hipsters have already been done, as in the link I provided, and then take pause to reflect.

6
 Big Ger 03 Oct 2016
In reply to ben b:
> Erm - imagined or actual?

Imagined.

> As the ever sensible Captain Paranoia points out, you have 'form' that taints your responses and makes it fairly predictable that your unexciting "neither funny nor original" comment gets more of a reaction than it deserves as of itself.

So ok, can you now let me know what sort responses I am allowed to make, ones which do not earn me off-topic personal attacks from people who I have not addressed points to, ever?

> And making comments about personal attacks when you have been banned for making personal attacks seems a little... sanctimonious.

That's funny, in the uncalled for personal attack by "masquerade" (above,) I was accused of being banned for making "sexist" posts, I wasn't BTW.
Post edited at 09:14
 ben b 03 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> So ok, can you now let me know what sort responses I am allowed to make, ones which do not earn me off-topic personal attacks from people who I have not addressed points to, ever?

I gather we can say what we like within the rules of the forum. But if for instance a user has previously been banned for transgressing them, then perhaps an 'easy ride' is unlikely afterwards.

> That's funny, in the uncalled for personal attack by "masquerade" (above,) I was accused of being banned for making "sexist" posts, I wasn't BTW.

Well that's alright then. stroppygob must have been banned for something else - but has probably forfeited the high moral ground (on account of having been banned).

Maybe there's just something about some of your posts that rubs people up the wrong way. Personally I find some of your posts interesting and some just pointlessly irritating, but I don't get too excited about it.

cheers

b
1
Masquerade 03 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> That's funny, in the uncalled for personal attack by "masquerade" (above,) I was accused of being banned for making "sexist" posts, I wasn't BTW.

Hey there genius. I'm the one who reported you for abuse, and guess what? I still have the email from the moderators about the decision to ban you! Do ya want a second attempt at that blatant lie?
6
 Big Ger 03 Oct 2016
In reply to ben b:



> Maybe there's just something about some of your posts that rubs people up the wrong way. Personally I find some of your posts interesting and some just pointlessly irritating, but I don't get too excited about it.

Thanks ben b, that's fair and reasonable.
 Wsdconst 03 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

My missus would kill me if I went bouldering in my three grand jumper, if I had a three grand jumper, or a missus.
 Wsdconst 03 Oct 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:

> All the GQ article says to me is that I'm in the wrong business, $800+ for a jumper $3900 for a bizarre waistcoat type thing. You'd only need to sell one every month or so and you'd be on a winner.

> I'm off to cut up the curtains to make some styling "Pants" which I'll be selling for £1,200. As a nod to UKC giving me the inspiration for my business I'm offering a 20% discount to members.

I'm interested in purchasing these "pant" but first, two questions, will they make me sexy, and will I be able to flag pole when I'm bouldering ??
 Wsdconst 03 Oct 2016
In reply to Masquerade:

You're getting a bit scary now :/
1
 Robert Durran 03 Oct 2016
In reply to Wsdconst:

> My missus would kill me if I went bouldering in my three grand jumper.

Don't joke about it. if you put a Moon or Prana label on a jumper, I bet some of those bouldering types would pay three grand for it.
In reply to Robert Durran:

A beannie, possibly. Boulderers don't wear tops...
In reply to Wsdconst:
> My missus would kill me if I went bouldering in my three grand jumper, if I had a three grand jumper, or a missus.

I can't afford the three grand jumper but I'm definitely going to get one of those cute little 'bags by black diamond'. It'll be great to keep my iPhone in.
Post edited at 23:44
 joem 04 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Im confused they weren't showing the patched climbing trousers with splattering's of sheep Sh*t and smelly 5 y.o fleece I was modelling so fetchingly last weekend.
 Robert Durran 04 Oct 2016
In reply to joem:

> Im confused they weren't showing the patched climbing trousers with splattering's of sheep Sh*t and smelly 5 y.o fleece I was modelling so fetchingly last weekend.

You mean you've sold out to the fashion industry and bought trousers labelled as "climbing trousers"?
 joem 04 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

worse, "Bouldering Trousers"
 GrahamD 04 Oct 2016
In reply to joem:

Not 'pants', at least.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...