Christchurch Adventure Park ‘Bro Zone’ Renamed ‘O-Zone’ Following Social Media Backlash
A new riding area at New Zealand’s Christchurch Adventure Park has been renamed the O-Zone following a social media backlash.
The O-Zone is a new pro jump area built for the park by Billy Meaclem and his digging crew. The new trails were originally called the Bro Zone when they soft-opened in November but the name change was confirmed by the park on December 3 and took place yesterday.
The Bro Zone name was criticized as it could discourage women riders from the pro area of the park. Detractors voiced their concerns on social media and the name was even questioned by Rosara Joseph, a silver medallist in the women's mountain bike event at the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games.
The Park posted the news on social media,
 | After customer feedback, we have decided to re-name “Bro Zone”. Irrespective of personal opinions we acknowledge our initial naming missed the mark despite our best intentions for this space. After talking as a group we have settled on “O-Zone”. O-Zone references the many Ooooooooh moments the space will create along with being a jump track relates to being high in the sky, above the ground like the atmosphere. The re-name of 'Bro-Zone' to 'O-Zone' will be in place by Tuesday. Furthermore, we are working towards renaming “Lil Bro”…. currently in the front running Tatao which is Te Reo for younger brother, sister or firstborn child…. The mini version of “O-Zone”. |
We commend Christchurch Adventure Park for rectifying the exclusionary name and allowing women riders to feel more welcome on all of the park's trails. This isn't the first time offensive trial names have been changed including recent high profile incidences in Kelowna and on the North Shore. The Park has been contacted for further comment.
Author Info:
Member since Nov 14, 2018
Must Read This Week
It will be called the NO NO ZONE
How did this get soooooo much negative props? Some Bro’s must be REALLY upset.
And what about me?!
You see, them being offended is actually greatly offending me!
They apparently have different opinions than I do and I'll have you know that I find that very OFFENSIVE!!!
We are backpedaling against years of exclusion of race, gender and identity.
There are many recent high profile examples where names have been changed and it might just be symbolic but it recognises that we are being more inclusive and equal. Take for example cleavland indians who are now known as the guardians.
How about this perhaps: Dudes, invite / employ the ladies to come out and dig. Then they can all, as a crew, decide on a good name. All, spend less time pissing and moaning and more time actually smashing berms and hitting jumps. Ladies, grab some shovels.
Ur kidding right
If something like this is enough hold back women I think something else ist totally WRONG.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiM9N2I4I-o&t=458s
(Note -I agree with some of those woke phrases being cancelled - as per the commentators)
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jogger-decries-offensive-mountain-biking-trail-names-in-kelowna-1.3835409
Awomen you freaking heathen. /S
Many are taking the stance that an alleged minority (which may be a bigger group than you realize since they don't want to wade into this devolving discussion) are the ones who need to grow thicker skin because words only mean what you let them mean. You can't have it both ways...if the words shouldn't matter to the offended, they shouldn't matter to you either. Why not name something with words that help more people feel better about it.
I don't think anybody is suggesting words do/dont matter - it's the premise that anything and everything these days can be an issue even on gender neutral words.
I'm sure there are things you do or say that a person could be offended by that you'd find "silly" while somebody is truly offended requiring you to alter your customary speech or daily rituals....do you cave any/every time or hold your ground?
So now because I have pointed out the following.
Fact 1, the name of a place named metaphorically, not literally.
The name is just a word, and the word itself holds no weight, as you could change this word and the action would remain the same.
Fact 2, Rape itself effects everybody. It is not gender exclusive, regardless of statistics.
I could counter the argument and make accusations that society seems to deem it bad to Rape women but it's cool to Rape men?
I won't because those aren't the facts.
Ratio is irrelevant, and I would argue the point if the roles were reversed.
A life safe from crimes against humanity of all kind is everybody's right.
So to add to your point, people want equality. As you stated, you can't have it both ways. So what is it? Are men and women created equal, or are they not equal at all?
This is the problem with ideology.
Is exactly the way racists use to argument: if most crimes are committed by (place your race here) then that problem is inherent to that race/condition.
Terrible oversimplification and bias
He stated 93% of rapes in US are committed by males. Well according to the FBI data (publicly available) in 2019 (latest data I found) there were a total of 105030 male offenders and 143224 rape cases (fortunately the second lowest of the violent crime types) were reported (which leave us with a 73,34% of the cases perpetrated by male rapists).
Assuming there was 1 person per rape we are speaking about 105030 male rapists in a total population of 160.2 male population (according to public demographic data from US). You cannot infer a direct correlation between two variables observing 0,06% from the total population and discarding other variables. Unless you are parting from the conclusion and look for some data afterwards.
It’s not the same saying “rape is a violent crime more prone to be committed by male violent criminals” than “male are prone to rape”.
Only looking to the gender it still leave us with almost a 27% of the cases than cannot be explained using only the gender variable. Then it’s easy to assume we are discarding here more relevant variables: education, psychological condition, socioeconomic problems… in most of those males tend to be over represented as well.
- Almost 70% of robbery under 18 years are from afroamerican people.
- 80,2% of people driving under influence are white.
- 68% of property crimes are from Caucasian people.
Are they racial issues? Can this statement be spread to the whole racial population? I expect your answer to be no.
Same reasoning same use of data, same oversimplification.
I understand people making a living of this want to continue living from pretending to fight problems. I understand some people simplify their views of the world (it’s comfortable to classify and simplify the world in some sort of good (us) vs bad (others)) but that’s believing not knowing and also it’s interest and hypocrisy not moral nor caring and sure not addressing problems.
And we were just speaking about a trail name. This scalated quickly
Moving on to my second point, I feel I did a pretty good job elaborating exactly what my point was, so to ask "What the hell are you on about?" Would only provoke a redundant response.
In regards to your question about me being mistreated, judged, or treated differently for something I can't control.
To be honest, I'm fairly certain everybody has experienced that at some point in their lives.
My question to you is, are the words you speak only worth being heard if you have?
I think your question only reinforced the irony in how society continues to demand equality, but unless you belong to a specific race, religion, gender, sexual orientation which has experienced persecution when you try to speak to all relating issues things quickly become exactly the opposite.
By continuing to isolate each of these groups, you only continue to perpetuate the exact issues everybody is fighting to improve.
On that note, I'm glad my comment provoked a response. I'm glad that when it's all said and done, we continue to think and speak freely.
That's not the truth.
Each and every person is, and should be equally valued.
On that note, each and every person is unique, and we all have unique skills and talents that are not equal to one another. This is what is called diversity.
I guess it comes down to that old saying, what goes up must come down.
The current "Woke" trend will eventually fade, and we can return to a point of balance in society until the next big thing rolls around.
Until then, same bat time, same bat channel.
I'm a little opposed to social/news media getting involved because things get blown out of proportions and people get into social shaming just because they know they have anonymity. There are many times where someone post something and local news reporters (like CBC) picks it up without any due diligence of checking if the content is legit. A good example was the Stelianos Psaroudakis incident back in 2017 where he claimed he was clotheslined on a trail. The reporter didn't do any investigations and posted the story online. Soon after that, other news outlet picked it up, followed by a Go-Fund-Me page. This thing turned out to be fake and the guy fled to Europe after getting charged with fraud and mischief. CBC did another report recently for which I'm not going to disclose here. But shit like this is misleading as I've been saying all along. When it pulls in people without any merit, shit like this can also ruin an innocent person's life.
It doesn't seem like a big deal to pinkbike commenters because we're 95% male (according to the community survey). But this is a cost-free change to make mountain biking more inclusive, and we're 95% snarky comments.
I'm sure we're having a laugh @Tmackstab @Caiokv but they've been renamed "C-buster" and "Severed-D" on all signs and maps for a reason.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
In this case it costs nothing, they're updating the name of a trail before it even opens.
You have written "it costs nothing" more than once in this thread but it appears you don't understand that the word "cost" doesn't only have a financial use.
Without knowing the origin of the name it's flat out wrong (cowardly in-fact) to change such an inoffensive name. e.g. Maybe the people who built the trail were bros.
Terry's belly implies men are all fat.
A470 implies women cannot count to 470.
Willy Waver implies only those with a penis (males and post-op trans males) are welcome.
Bush Whacker implies it's for alpha male sex fiends only.
Insufficient Funds implies it's men only because of the gender pay gap.
Escort... Well, again, sexist. Same with Deep Navigation.
And don't get me started on 50 Shades of Black and Blackadder - both contain the word black which is racist.
And on to the coup dear grace - Join the Dots. This trail is for women only apparently, as they are apparently much better than men at finger painting.
How do they get off naming trails in this totally un-PC way?
I do not believe that there's a deeper meaning to "Bro Zone" that's worth defending at the cost of making someone feel excluded.
Instead, here I am, getting downvoted into oblivion.
your mom is a hell of ride!
I've heard the term used by women referring to their daughters. I though it was weird, then I was told I was just old, which I am.
Once again PB User comments demonstrate what a sausage-fest the sport was/is.
Hopefully it’ll change by the time my daughter is old enough to understand.
*Goes on to speak about exclusion and negate his first point*
well, maybe I do.....*goes and files for a copyright*
Can’t remember the last time someone opened the door because I was a man
Or bought me a drink because I was a man
Or hired me because I was an attractive man
Or gave me money because I was an attractive man
Or didn’t have to work myself to the bone 40hrs a week because I was a man
Or wasn’t eligible for the draft because I was a man
Or was allowed to met lower physical strength standards because I was a man.
Your point is obtuse and lacks credibility, particularly given your citing of “recent gender studies”
Genders are pretty equal. We both have strengths and weakness, and pros and cons of being either gender. Men and women balance each other out symbiotically. Time to step off your soap box, and step back into reality.
Yes, and good riddance
Hi, I'm a man:
Someone literally opened the door for me today.
There's quite a lot of research demonstrating that more attractive (and especially taller) men are more successful and make more money than less attractive men. So it does apply.
Not sure what you're getting at with "didn't have to work myself to the bone" so I'll leave it unless you care to expand.
Mmm, drafts... this one varies from country to country, but it's true there's a gender difference in something so politically unpopular that it is unlikely to occur in our lifetimes.
"Allowed to meet lower criteria". I've never been in the armed services, but my guess is that the smart strategy is to look at battlefield performance, not intake requirements. Note that in the US those have been dropped for both genders recently so that they can increase recruitment.
Also, plenty of women have bough me drinks in bars. Dunno what to tell you, dude. Maybe you should smile more?
In many ways men and women are on a much more level playing field than ever, which is dope. But talking to my female friends, sports (MTB included) is a place where they continue to feel uncomfortable and excluded by the culture. And a ton of the comments here basically brush of their experiences as unimportant. Which sucks.
People get so focused on viewing equality on a point by point basis, like the points I listed. There will always be pros and cons to being a woman, and pros and cons to being a man.
Men and women are not equal across the board. In some traits they far exceed male capabilities, and in some traits men exceed female capabilities. My whole point was to show, given a perspective, any sex can be favored. But more importantly, men and women balance each other out in the big picture. Yin and Yang, black and white cookie, pork chops and apple sauce my man!
In the context of this article and the decision made here, what I am telling you is that many women feel excluded from adventure sports, especially as beginners. It sounds like you are chalking that up to one of the "cons" or being a woman. But it's not some inbuilt thing that cannot be changed.To say there are pros and cons for each gender and then walking off into the sunset ignores the agency you have to make changes in the world. You can literally just paint over the sign and say "hey, sorry! We want women to feel welcome here because they belong here so we changed the sign to be less gendered." It's a single, small, positive step that is almost effortless.
Do I hold my views and believe sexism exists. Of course I do. I seen sexism go both ways. My dad and brother were/are both male nurses. Not a stereotypical male job, in which they both were subject to sexism more than once.
I do believe women see it more then men. I do also believe it’s not as common as many people feel, or are led to believe it is. There’s two sides to a coin, and this issue as well. It’s not black and white, and you really have to look from both perspectives to appreciate this issue in entirety.
With that said, I absolutely agree that women could/do feel excluded from adventure sports. Btw, I actually quite agree with most of your points in the comments above.
Cheers!
"I do also believe it’s not as common as many people feel, or are led to believe it is." - Maybe this is true in Germany, I really hope it is, but it isn't the case here in the states and in many places in the world. That's just a fact and anyone arguing otherwise is willfully ignorant.
Trail bikes and Enduro bikes are bikes, but they are not the same tools. Your arguments are crossing boundaries that define them, and lack congruency.
I’ll help you here, privilege is something that is GIVEN. Sexism is something that is IMPOSED. Diametric difference.
Also, I’m an American stationed in Germany, sooooo………..
“ a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular group”
Explain to me how male privilege is IMPOSED on women, when by definition it is something that is granted to a group???
Your semantics are denigrating your stance bud
"It's maybe been a decade now that women have not actively been discouraged from mostphysical/dangerous sports"
- that's neither good nor bad. For all you know, many a young man has been permanently injured in sports he wasn't keen on, but was encouraged/pressured to do.
"maybe supporting things that make women not feel welcome in our sport makes you an a*shole?"
- not wanting to succumb to every demand from every spoilt bratty bitch is a sign of strength.
Being a woman in the western world may have some downsides; but it is and has been an easier life than that of men.
I lived in Switzerland when some cantons where still arguing about whether to give women the vote, and the voters decided "No". Those with the privilege of voting all just happened to be MEN, and imposed their continued position of relative privilege on women.
Your lack of logic is undermining your argument.
If your post is remotely serious, it shows a sickening lack of insight.
We're not talking about people literally bought and sold. We're talking about people who have far more leverage in western society due to their gender and the rules which allow them to exploit preferential treatment.
Everyone is shaped by their personal lived experienced. It takes intentional work to look outside of our lived experiences and be willing to see others perspectives. I'm not going to dismiss all the women I've talked to that have told me about their own personal experiences with discrimination because I haven't had the same experience. I admit I was being a bit of an a**hole with my initial response to you because i was tired and annoyed with all of this but I'd be happy to have a real conversation if you wanted.
Please show me where I ever argued that men haven’t held positions of power for much longer than women in any of my replies. Point those words out exactly.
Because I haven’t, haven’t even typed those words. You infer I said that, by reading into my my reply, instead of actually paying attention to what I said.
FYI, I agree that men have held positions of power longer than women. I don’t think anyone could disagree.
We are not some collective. We are individuals. If a person was discriminated against 50 years ago in some aspect of life, that doesn't mean someone of the same gender today gets to play victim to that OTHER individual's experience.
"I could also go on to explain how i have had personal experiences where me being a man has made my life easier." You could also give experiences where being a man meant your experience was harder than it would have been for a woman in the same situation. It's not in our nature to do that as men because women keep telling us we have it easy, and we like to think highly of ourselves so we eat that story up.
"I also could do a really simple google search on laws that have discriminated against women in the united states history, list them out, and discuss how thats contributed to modern day bias and the nuances that come along with that between the sexes." You could also look at incarceration rates, and likelihood of being found guilty in a court of law, and severity of sentences for similar crimes between women and men. From those numbers we can see that men are very clearly discriminated against in the courts today, and when they go to prison, they get to enjoy the violence and rape that comes with prison. But men are many times less likely to draw attention to that kind of trauma.
Life in Western Society has an uber-elite Patriarchy that all men are being found guilty of participating in. The reality is, under that level, practically every urban institution has policies and laws which favour women over men.
With all the pro-nouns today are we expected to understand every single one including all the silly ones like "puppy" (which are apparently legitimate)?
Where is the line drawn and who makes the decision?
Do we leave it up to psychologists? If so, should we have relied on Freud to figure all this out for us....in hindsight, no....but we could be saying the same thing about professionals in the field now.....in 50 years.
@sonuvagun: Feel free to also consider the possibility that you might be an a*shole.
Many people regardless of gender are put off by the high fiving 'bro' culture into feeling the sport (or particular trail networks) are not for them, even though it's far from the intention of most 'bros'.
Wouldn't it be nice if MTB as a whole was less of a sausage fest?
"...even though it's far from the intention of most 'bros'." Yeah, the point exactly. Context matters.
You get a bunch of 10 armour wearing bros clustered around the trail head mouthing off about hitting sick triples at 100 miles an hour and it's going to put off a lot of people starting down that trail, even if everything on it can be safely rolled on a hardtail by a beginner wearing an XC lid, and it was constructed that way deliberately to make it the perfect trail for skills progression. The people who are put off aren't 'offended' by the bros, but might still think 'I don't belong on this trail, it's built for people like them'. Is "Fine then, don't" really the message you want to send?
Context matters, and intention is important, but unless intention is acted on it's invisible to anyone but yourself.
I enjoy these hypothetical situations that yourself and others tend to draw up.. yet you'd like to have a go at me about a strawman? C'mon now. "You get a bunch of 10 armour wearing bros clustered around the trail head mouthing off about hitting sick triples at 100 miles an hour...""...even if everything on it can be safely rolled on a hardtail by a beginner wearing an XC lid...". Tell me, where is this happening exactly?
For the sake of argument, let's take it at face value--let's say some excited lads are at the top of the line recounting their last run 'at 100 miles an hour' (lol).. are they not allowed to do that? In the scenario you've laid out, these 'bros' (your words not mine) are enjoying the park as anyone else would. They are pumped up about their runs, even in this area where 'everything can be rolled by a hardtail by a beginner wearing an XC lid'. They are not blocking the trail, they haven't been rude, they haven't even *spoken* to this imaginary fragile being you are trying to protect. Ok, AND? What would you have them do then mate? I'm actually baffled trying to follow your logic here. "Ok lads, we'll have you go down single file. Wait until the marshall says go. There will be NO whooping, NO shouting. Just perform the act then return to the top. Do not talk unless given permission, because someone *might* hear it and instead of using their own faculties, logic, and good judgement to discern whether or not they should go down this trail, dsut4392 has determined that they are either not intelligent enough or too fragile to ever be put in a situation that might make them uncomfortable...potentially.". To play with your idea a bit, let's set up the opposite scenario--no 'bros' at the top, but a super gnarly trail that is definitely not for beginners. Signed right at the top, double black... then what? *Who* does the responsibility for the rider fall to then? Because before it was the bros at the top responsible for this rider, but now they're not in the picture. Is it right to suggest that the rider have some person responsibility in the decision making process? If so here, then why not at the other trail?
I'll attempt to save some back and forth and progress the conversation at hand--why do you feel it is acceptable to police the legal behavior of others? These 'bros' have broken no laws. They are guilty of simply sounding (subjectively) intimidating, apparently. In your goofy scenario the fragile rider *might* be put off, lol, so you'd have the bros do what then? Curious your answer here. Here's a different scenario--maybe, *maybe* the new rider hesitates at the top of the line. *maybe* one of the bros notices this and says 'Oh it's really rideable dude, no worries'. New rider still has hesitation. Dude bro says 'You want to follow me down? It's really mellow, I'll go slow.. this one isn't too bad'. OH THE HUMANITY.
"The people who are put off aren't 'offended' by the bros, but might still think 'I don't belong on this trail, it's built for people like them'." And they would be *wrong* in thinking that, and that's totally on THEM, not the bros. How is this hard to grasp?
- By put off I mean deter dissuade discourage etc. Yes, probably a translation thing.
-Where exactly - Air Ya Garn (upper), Derby, every day of the week that shuttles are running. Two or three shuttles pull up at a similar time, and 20 people congregate at the trail entrance while one from each group messes around with their pads etc. It's a signed blue track, that ridden at low speed it's the easiest, lowest consequence trail down by a big margin, but at speed you can get lots of air, and not always have clear sight lines. I know more than one non-imaginary person who only rides that track outside of shuttle operating hours purely because of inconsiderate behaviour by people riding it as if it were a private track.
-What would I have them do? Your 'different scenario' is a good one and happens sometimes, and there are plenty of other variations e.g "hey, are you heading down Air Ya Garn, it's an awesome track? We're going to be going pretty fast and getting lots of air, do you mind letting us through if you hear us catching you? You can totally roll everything if you're not ready for jumps". Most people, bros or otherwise are friendly and respectful towards everyone, but every now and then a group of bros fail to notice (or ignore) an outsider who rolls away intimidated. How is that a good outcome for anyone, even when it's unintended?
I'm not advocating 'policing' anyone, just encouraging everyone to be aware other people might not see things the same way as they do. Much as you seem to be protesting otherwise, your behaviour does affect how other people think and feel - I'm not failing to grasp your assertion that "it's totally on THEM", I'm rejecting it as false, as is the assertion that giving trails sexist names can't have the consequence of making some trail users feel less welcome.
Have you ever given any thought to the notion that offense is never given, rather always taken? Of course not. Legislating to the lowest denominator, in this case those who are the least in control of their own emotions, is a race to the bottom.
I forgot, there's no arguing 'feelings' because they are all valid in your eyes, right? "I'm rejecting it as false" the absolute sanctimonious life you sad sods live. I 'feel' you are all a positively insufferable lot. Cheers.
For someone who claims offence is taken not given, you sure seem pretty triggered about the name of a trail on the far side of the planet being changed by the owners of the bike park the trail is in, and the mere suggestion that it's worth considering how other people's feelings may be affected by your actions and words.
Why do you choose to feel that way, it sounds positively tiring and uncomfortable?
"Show me where I said bros shouldn't have fun..." Yeah? Show me where I said that *you* said bros can't have fun? We can play that game all day if you'd like. (Sidenote, funny how you never clarify a position of yours that I have allegedly misunderstood, rather echo 'show me where I said that' like it's some sort of slam dunk fortification of your position, lol) Assuming a minimal level of reading comprehension, dots can be connected and inferences drawn. You had recounted a fable wherein the offenders are those who 'do sick triples at 100mph' and are excited about it, but yet have not broken rules of any kind. They would be 'fun havers', yes? And you have deemed their behavior unacceptable in the presence of any other people for fear that it may be 'off putting', correct? Do I need to do the rest of the work here, or have you taken the point? You not literally saying the words 'bros shouldn't have fun' does not make the thesis of your argument any different. Though I'm sure in your mind it's more like 'bros can have all the fun they want, they just need to have it the way I say they can'. Authroitarian twit.
"...or suggested 'legislating' to the lowest common denominator'" Same as above. The victim in your scenario, by your own words, is someone who "...regardless of gender are put off by the high fiving 'bro' culture into feeling the sport (or particular trail networks) are not for them, even though it's far from the intention of most 'bros' and "...might still think 'I don't belong on this trail, it's built for people like [the bros]'". It appears your argument is that it is both logical and prudent that a group, enjoying the park as permitted and intended, should alter their behavior because someone *might* be put off by it, with the line for being 'put off' being totally subjective. So absent mind reading, these lads, purely out of caution, should be stripped of the privilege to enjoy the park as themselves, as who they are, on account that someone might be 'put off' by their personalities?? That's the height of absurdity. Sure sounds like 'policing' to me. For the fact that the victim in your scenario lacks the self confidence and social skills to parse the situation, the expectation is that the group must completely alter their behavior. That is legislating to the lowest denominator. (You misquoted me in your reply--there is nothing 'common' implied here, an important distinction to be had.)
You've misrepresented my position with "Much as you seem to be protesting otherwise, your behaviour does affect how other people think and feel..." I agree, behavior absolutely can affect how people think and feel, and I've never made a case to the contrary. (I could play your favorite card 'show me where I said..' but will pass on it in favor of correcting the misunderstanding.) We are in agreement that one's behavior can have an affect on others, rather we disagree to what extent an individual is responsible for their own feelings. I've stated my position above; absent mind reading, what would you have the bros do? You've conveniently left out any actionable advice in that regard. 'Just be aware of others...' yes, easy enough. However, that goes both ways--not everyone thinks the same as you, and may have different ways of enjoying an activity. And if a newcomer is not confident in doing something, then don't do it. It is on no one else to provide for them that confidence or comfort.
"And this sneering dismissal of other people being 'lower' (than yourself, presumably?) comes right after you accuse me of prudish moral superiority..." Fair criticism. I should have kept my focus on you, the individual that I am interacting with and from which the opinion was derived, than to project that onto a group of imaginary strangers. I stand corrected. Worth mentioning, my position was not one of morality, but rather academic, however that is a tale for another time.
"For someone who claims offence is taken not given, you sure seem pretty triggered about the name of a trail..." Ah yes, shifting the goalposts. Could have seen this coming from a million kilometers away. You bring up the trail name, why now? Our whole conversation has been entirely about something else, and now you want to shift it to the trail name, of which neither of us have commented on to this point? Why? Is it because you know you have a losing position and need to strawman my stance on a different topic so that you may appear to have a good footing again? Nah, you'd never do that would ya now...
"...and the mere suggestion that it's worth considering how other people's feelings may be affected by your actions and words." More moral posturing on your part. And as already clarified above, I've never contested the basic premise of your statement. I will, for the sake of clarity, reiterate that feelings are up to the individual to arrive upon, and thus no other party can bear the responsibility for them, ultimately. Legislating to the most fragile and least competent is a race to the bottom. This truth does not invalidate an elective practice to 'be nice', however subjective that definition may be.
"Why do you choose to feel that way..." lol, gaslight much? I don't feel that way at all, but nice try.
CAP: Sod this....
Don't you see how ridiculous it all is? People should stop seeing everything in such a negative light. Everyone is not out to get you. Roll your sleeves up and get on with life is what I say.
What a world we live in!
They're responding to customer feedback, and we're challenging who the customers are and if their feedback should be considered?
I just hope that in my lifetime water and maths, if not the whole of the developed world, can stop being racist. And sexist. Of course, the rest of the world can continue to be racist and sexist... Nobody cares about those countries anyway. Unless they get a bike park and call their trails by racist names, then they deserve some serious social media backlash from three people pretending to be offended and 34 of their friends who pressed "like".
Do none of you with your Swedish @jesperA, Dutch @Mac1987, British @jaame and US @Badler @Dmrides flags see the comical absurdity of your position?
I’m sure the “social media backlash” was probably a few women being like “hey, this name feels kinda off-putting to women”, meanwhile everyone here is far more offended than the “PC police” they’re complaining about.
If we could return to the good old days, we would see how many people actually care about stuff, and how many are just pressing "like" for something to do to pass the time when they're getting paid to work.
A better way to be inclusive in this case (which has actually alienated more people than it has included) would have been to rename the line next to it "Sis Zone". A lot of people have brothers and a lot have sisters. It is not inclusive to cancel brothers. It is inclusive to add sisters.
I think it's just the way NZ is going though isn't it? I like Jacinda Adern in a lot of ways. She cares for the people. Well, she cares about keeping them safe from themselves at least. Not so much about protecting their freedom, in some ways. A bit like Obama. She'd make a great next door neighbour. I'd be happy to have Obama on one side and Adern on the other. Not sure how good they are at getting shit done for the majority of the electorate though.
About the name change that's been mooted. Not sure if it will come before or after the meat ban... But I'm all for it. If the people vote to change the name to Aotearoa then that's exactly what they should do. Not Aotearoa New Zealand though. It sounds silly as it's too long. Aotearoa is actually a much cooler sounding name, and we don't need to get hung up on the fact that it's historically contentious. It's a name for the day.
I wonder if we will ever get a name change. It would be interesting to see what options we can come up with. We could maybe call the whole of the UK Scotland or Wales. That would be cool. I mean, we're not exactly united these days.
Most of the 'concentration camps' people are being put in are the same hotel rooms international travellers would normally pay hundreds of dollars a night to stay in. The others are student flats, or converted military bases which are good enough for our armed forced.
Melbourne and Sydney have had some long runs of restrictions, but the majority of people actually support them, because we can see where the alternative road leads and don't want to go there. Most of the country on the other hand has been entirely Covid free, with barely any restrictions. You know how many days that there has been mandatory mask wearing where I live in the entire duration of the pandemic so far? THREE. My wife
I bet the 815023 Americans who have died from Covid (and growing by 6000 per week) are enjoying their newfound freedom from confinement in a mortal body. You have 11 times the population of Australia, but you're still getting triple the deaths EVERY WEEK that we have had in the entire 93 weeks since the first death here on 2 March 2020.
I don't smoke, never have, never will. I absolutely miss the point of smoking - it offers nothing of value that I can see.
However, this is horrific political overreach. There are such things as cigarettes. Some people may want to smoke them. What business is it of anyone but that person if he or she wants to smoke?
Is everything going to be illegal one day? I know meat will be, but what else will they put on the list?
I think it's complicated, no cut and dry opinion for me....but
Don’t get me wrong, I am personally against smoking. I would love it if no one smoked, but it’s not my business what other people do. I would also worry about what you said - if the government can control hazardous activities on healthcare cost grounds, are we also going to be outlawed at some point? Is the O Zone line going to be closed. One would hope not after the investment in the name change.
Ride on, bro!
Maybe the christchurch-bros should think about this
For example, when Starbucks has some seasonal pink frappucino, they don’t call it a “sexy lady latte” or something stupid like that, because they aren’t trying to alienate customers.
This is getting a bit out of hand folks. Take a deep breath, ride your bike and have some fun, geez.
Everyone agreeing with the change is being downvoted to oblivion in the name of being anti-cancellation, and everyone disagreeing with the change is super angry that other people's feelings are being considered when they should just get over it because offence is taken not given.
What I meant was, that if you can afford to get so upset about something as unimportant as the name of a mountainbike trail and make a big fuss about it on social media, then you clearly have very little else to worry about in your life.
I used to be right into rock climbing, and went to a crag in Nowra usually known as "PC" - the full name being the opposite of PC, and the route names are all NSFW.
There's a riding area in my current home town with trail names referencing the homeless guy who used to camp in the area for many years. He hasn't been there for years so will never have seen the (home made) trail signs, but it only takes the tiniest bit of empathy to understand how disrespectful it is for someone in that position to be mocked by privileged teenagers.
Tails have silly names, get over it.
Personally, I would like to see all trail names switch to being pirate themed.
I suspect the “social media backlash” was a few women being like “hey, that’s a shit trail name and feels kinda exclusionary” so they changed it, and now everybody on PB is acting like EWS implemented mandatory castration or something, lol
In Wellington there's a trail called Three Brothers at Makara. Although gendered language, it's named for hall of famers the Kennett brothers who were part of the original driving force to develop the park.
I think there's a wide difference between the North American use of bro and NZ use of the term which is tearing up the comments as well.
That trail is sick but its CAP being CAP, they don't know how to Maintain trails let alone name them.
they gave up and brung in a trail team to build this trail.
the meaning of bro is male brother, ie anybody's male brother.. its pure sexism favouritism,
If there was a trail there called Big Sis, 100% it wouldnt get changed no matter how many males complained
With that said I got called out like 20 years ago for addressing a group of male/females as "Guys"...certainly was not an intentional play to be sexist....just a common use of the term where I was from which is even more common now by guys and gals.
At work these days I make a point of using "Folks"....but in some circles I can certainly see males/females using the term Bro as a gender neutral term of endearment.....for better or worse.
But if it's "inclusive" for women that okay right? (ie. Ladies Only). Pull the pacifier from your buttholes and just enjoy riding your bike. Sadly, the world has gone WAY too soft. Maybe try checkers or a road bike..
There's much more important issues to deal with in the world.
I've heard people often struggle to find it when visiting the adventure park.
How about that, gals by which I mean the 95% males reading this? Do any of you ladies have an answer for that?
*Or habits, sayings, interests etc
If there are any plans to sell merchandise like t-shirts that include names of trails, having something with a broader appeal can translate directly into more money.
Just wild speculation, but I'd wager that they'd sell a lot more t-shirts with the message "I spent the day riding O-Zone" than "I spent the day riding Bro-Zone".
I think we all know which part of the cycle we are currently in.
It's not like the change was at the request of actual paying customers who are said bike park's source of revenue, unlike the daft offended PB c*nts or something, right?
Just a quick note to the truly offended the trail slunt in fernie is actually a word mash of slog and grunt. It is both of those so is truly aptly named although most feel uncomfortable saying it.
2 - I would tend to agree that rename it was really virtue signaling more than anything, and fixed point 1
3 - I doubt the name of a trail would keep female riders away if they wanted to ride it
4 - What is the 'non-inclusive' culture I read about ?
I do not dismiss the accusation, I'm just trying to understand what we're talking about based on some concrete facts...there are women on the trails and they seem to enjoy themselves doing exactly the same things that male riders do and sometimes much better (better than me for sure). Also, I haven't seen people being chased off the trails either or even heard about something similar...could it just be that for some reason women do not appreciate riding off road as much as men hence the lower representation? If there's a real elitist/non-inclusive culture on the trails I think this would be a good place to denounce it with clear statements, there are prominent female PinkBike contributors that could provide first hand experience or have a different point of view than the average testosterone afflicted bro. Just sayin'
A woman or minority: I don’t like this thing
RWers: omg such a snowflake! You can’t say that! You’re so sensitive. Cancel culture run amok!
interesting that people think this comes down to whether or not someone would refuse to ride this trail due to the name. that's unlikely, but doesn't mean it's not a stupid name for a trail area/zone. fixing it was easy and hurts nobody.
Really? That is the reason? I cannot believe it... how can a biker be such an a-hole. Get offended by a cool name in a bike park. It discourages women, really? I'm sorry but this is pathetic. I don't care how many dislikes I get but I hate people like this ruining everything because they are sad and lonely with lives that do not go anywhere and they want to make others miserable like them. Man f*ck society!
I think all of these keyboard warriors, again, need to take a deep breath. Get on your bike and relax and have fun... geez.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVfp16T20zY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBRlPP-QoTI
"Whether or not you like it or endorse it, no one cares, so please just shut it." Ah ok, had not realized I was dealing with Greta Thunburg's little brother. Seriously, are you 12?
Of the couple dozen trail days I've participated in over the past 5 years, female participants have never been more than 20% of the showing, max. Some clubs might be lucky and hit a 50/50 split. You'd know this reality if you ever dug trail, which I'm guessing you don't, because instead you've been brainwashed into thinking that changing letters on a sign is 'making a difference'. Westboro Baptist Church? That's you. Only instead of the church as the compass for your moral superiority, it's the state.
youtu.be/YnopHCL1Jk8
Yes, I'm fun at parties...I just dislike annoying social phenomena.
.
It’s coming ……
Just wait !
Rename the trail because 'Bro Zone' was lame. Don't rename it because of some screechers on social media. If I was a betting person I'd wager that there will be a B-R inked on that sign persistently.
I read 1984 in 1992 the first time.
I don't like making assumptions but I suspect (and sorry if I'm wrong) that you're one of those people who attribute views to Orwell he could not have been further from. He would almost certainly support the bike park's decision if he was alive and could be arsed with trivial stuff like this.
I agree with Orwell that language can have an effect on the thought.
I don’t care about a trail name. I only observe the larger trends.
You might not care about a trail name, some do. And it's fine. I find it a bit self-contradictory when you accept that language has an effect on people, yet dismiss it when others do the same thing and consider that effect in their own use of language.
I still maintain there is close to zero analogy between this name change and newspeak by the way.
I don't think the naming of the trail (lame name btw) was politically driven.
However I'm convinced the renaming was.
Hence newspeak resembles.
Frankly, even if it was political (which it isn't) it would have nothing in common with newspeak. You're still proving you do not understand what newspeak was, how it worked, the mechanics of imposing it, the purpose of it... nothing.
If anything, this name change is closer to the opposite or, shall I say, undoing newspeak in its intent.
Honestly, go re-read the book now as a grown up.
EDIT as to your other comment:
The word sexist does not have a different meaning. No newspeak here. Bro zone literally means a zone for men. In a bike park. It is sexist. And changing it to sell product after complaints by paying consumers of said product could not be further from politics.
CM!
Now this Bro is going to take my Betty off for a ride to the O-Zone. 'Night.
Just interesting, will it be renamed...
Have a look at them and see who is doing the censoring, you'll find the true cancel-culture is coming from the 'pro-bro' brigade.
I wonder if the trail squirts
I would suggest "Tech Zone" or "Difficult Zone"
Bro-zone is also a sad attempt at a trail name. Was the team that built and named it exclusively 8 year old kids and 50 year old middle managers?
It's like seatbelts: on average, they save lives, but every once in a thousand accidents, some unlucky bastard drowns because he couldn't get his seatbelt undone.
Happy now? (And yes, I hope Kyle makes a speedy recovery. It sucks to be that one guy that gets f*ck*d and we should do our best to support him).