White heterosexual men lead the cycling industry, report says amid calls for more inclusive approach

David9694 wrote:

* actually - your point, guys?

Their point: The having of a little power, however petty and meanly employed, over others in the traditional class, racialist and sexist system hierarchies of our fine British tradition, originating from the long depths of human history, with a special mention to the monotheistic artifice of The Great Chain of Being.

Someone has to be the king with a divine right and someone the wormy things in the muck! If you can belt your lass (and the kids) 'rund the ear to keep her in her place (the worm-muck) that's just as it should be!

********

When I were a lad, I noticed that many of my childhood friends were condemned to live in a household containing a monster, called "dad" but actually more a-one o' them devil-torturers you see in paintings by Hieronymus. They all had a point, oh yes; and they used it all the time, on everyone they could poke and pierce with it.

Even worse, kids that endure living in a single mother household, known to lead to poor scholastic results and adult life outcomes.

grOg wrote:

Even worse, kids that endure living in a single mother household, known to lead to poor scholastic results and adult life outcomes.

''Ere, 'ere - must I show you my PhD in Thinking Rather Than Reading The Dictator and my fine pension that's 10% more than sufficient, even for a tool-wielding constructor of all sorts albeit with an addiction to the very shiniest of tools!?

And don't forget my excellent bossy-loving ladywife. Betcha haven't got such a lady, you. No.  Some lads just can't be bossed, eh? Or loved.

What if... women don't want to cycle?
A simple straw pole of my team in the office (8 women, 5 men), and all the women think that cycling isn't for them.
Not because its male dominated, but because they don't feel safe.
Too many loonies driving cars.
Too many big trucks
Cycle? And get treated like shit by everyone?
Where am I gonna clean up before work?
How am I gonna carry my stuff?

And my personal favourite of "Look what happened to you..." [got hit while cycling home, life changing injuries]

At no point did any of my colleagues mention anything at all about feeling excluded because of male domination.

But then ... that's just 8 women in a non-cycling office.

Oldfatgit wrote:

What if... women don't want to cycle? A simple straw pole of my team in the office (8 women, 5 men), and all the women think that cycling isn't for them. Not because its male dominated, but because they don't feel safe. Too many loonies driving cars. Too many big trucks Cycle? And get treated like shit by everyone? Where am I gonna clean up before work? How am I gonna carry my stuff?...

Props for actually asking women!  (I should just stop there - but ... maybe it's because I'm a rambling man)

But what about the men?  Or perhaps your company specialises in hunting mammoths with spears, professional wrestling or is full of stock traders on commissions in which case ... (currently, Cugel) nevermind!

When people say they don't want to then yes - that is how they feel, but I immediately want to ask "why not?" (after all cycling is more efficient than walking).  If we *did* level the playing field so that e.g. cycling on the roads didn't feel like an extreme sport practiced by oddballs how would they feel then?  (e.g. it's not "oh, well women just don't want to cycle full stop").

Three different things: women in a particular industry, women in sport / "recreational" cycling and women cycling as just another transport mode.

On the last - I think "safety" is a "necessary but not sufficient" thing.  After all the UK the roads are "very safe" (by numbers) and yet effectively nobody cycles.  Humans also need convenience (around the kind of lives they're living - women may have different responsibilities) and we want to do things socially.

All I know is that in the country which has done the most to make cycling at least as convenient as driving for many trips* women do a bit more cycling than men.

* Where cycling is something which feels really safe and something normal for normal people to do wearing normal clothes, together with any family and friends (just like they'd walk somewhere).

"But what about the men?"
I asked them as well, but as this was about woment, decided that reporting their answers was somewhat less important.

They pretty much came back with esstially the same answers - safety from othe road users - with the addition of "because I'm not fucking mad like you are"

--------- 

Cycling seems to be like being a football supporter:
Many people that are not rabid about football can understand why people would be attracted to it.
Many people who are football supporters can't understand why someone doesn't like the game.

People are entitled *not* to like cycling, and *not* to want to cycle, as much as we are entitled *to* like it.

Oldfatgit wrote:

"But what about the men?"
I asked them as well, but as this was about woment, decided that reporting their answers was somewhat less important.

They pretty much came back with esstially the same answers - safety from othe road users - with the addition of "because I'm not fucking mad like you are"

That was exactly my point.  I appreciate this has now wandered quite a ways from "straight white men run the cycling industry".

Specifically on "cycling as transport / everyday cycling" then: on "diversity of take-up of cycling" the headline should be "People don't like or want to cycle on roads in the UK" rather than "Women don't like cycling".

Oldfatgit wrote:

People are entitled *not* to like cycling, and *not* to want to cycle, as much as we are entitled *to* like it.

I completely agree.  And conditions in the UK are what they are so I don't expect or want people to like cycling on roads in the UK as they are now.  I'm not saying "I can so why can't you?" (though it's statistically very safe...)

As you suggest I do have selfish reasons.  Obviously I'm an enthusiast and like to share the joy - but I'd like change.  People don't realise it could be very different - and it's actually possible to achieve.  So they don't express an interest.  And thus politicians and media and local authorities see it as "no one's asking to swim the crocodile-infested river, so building a bridge / reducing the crocodile population is a waste of money".

"What if... women don't want to cycle?"

Yet when cycling is made safer and better infrastructure is provided, more women cycle.

If you make the environment intimidating for those who aren't as strong/confident/foolhardy (all of which are aided by testosterone), it's not surprising that relatively few women want to cycle.

In my bit of London, I'd say half the cyclists I see are women. Most of my female friends cycle, although few are "sporty" types. Despite my frequent complaints, we have excellent infrastructure and routes with little/no motor traffic. When I get on the main roads, or even into Not London, it's very much male-dominated.

It's fairly well-accepted that diversity at senior levels improves outcomes, due to the increased range of viewpoints. I can very well imagine bad infra being stopped if women in senior positions were there to say "you lot might feel safe riding on that, we wouldn't". 

On that - for better or worse women even in the UK do more of the childcare (and care in general e.g. with older folks etc.).  For those with children - if it doesn't feel safe to do with your kids, you're much less likely to do it at all.

Meanwhile in "Unicorn land":

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/arriving-at-school-by-bicy...

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/cycling-with-babies-and-to...

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/safe-cycling-for-8-to-80-y...

cyclisto wrote:

.......The key stat here is that much more men in the industry work because they really like it.  ...... "turn your hobby into a profession and you will never work again"  ...... Dutch girls .... Girls are not stupid, they were evolved to protect little fragile creatures  ..... So girls seriously think about safety and that is why they cycle in Netherlands, they have a safe infrastructure and also a legal framework and culture that is friendly to cycling. ......don't bust employer's balls telling them to hire people they don't really to work in the industry

Wot a collection of juicy patriarchal nuggets! Ee, me sides.

One must here enquire about the women, as the girls may still be at school; or locked in the nursery with the babies you seem to think they all have, to the exclusion of any other interest.

Are there no women that really like cyling and possibly a potential job running a cycling industry org of some kind? Perhaps it's just one of those female gender intrinsic traits identified by patriarchs using their superior intelligence (ha ha)  .... that women are jes no good at them technical things, managing etc.? Alas, events have swept this notion aside. Women are even engineers .... using tools and maths!  They are even better at such thing than the blokes!! My wife manages me!!  (No easy task, let me tell you). 

I've had a word with t'ladywife, by the way, explaining that she probably shouldn't be going cycling as there's no cycling infrastructure here so she should be afraid and staying somewhere where she can look after babies. Luckily I was ready for the bust she aimed at my balls.

When she was a girl, t'ladywife was in the TA, operating general purpose machine guns and learning how to disarm bullymen. Later she took up riding motorbikes and at one point worked for the local polis in, er "training" motorbike yobs they'd had-up for hooning - in how to grow up and be sensible on such a machine. But the polis probably only gave her the job 'cos there was no man about to do it (they were all hooners).

PS Turn your hobby into a job and never play at it again. Instead, spend 16 miserable hours a day doing the VAT, marketing, dealing with castigating customers and several other soul-destroying tasks. Mind, women are generally better at handling them than are men, without a lot of shouting and sulking the top blokes seem to indulge in when stressed. Must be all that baby-mindin'.

Ok we get it, your wife is Rambo. But it doesn't mean that because one is Rambo every girl is Rambo. This is where stats come.

How do you explain that women in bike industry are massively uninspired compared to men and why there are much less women cyclists on roads with no serious cycling infrastructure.

cyclisto wrote:

Ok we get it, your wife is Rambo. But it doesn't mean that because one is Rambo every girl is Rambo. This is where stats come.

Who this "we"? The patriarchy? 

Frankly, you seem to "get" very little.  This may be due to a lack of opportunity to see things because o' them man-blinkers you've got on. Tear 'em off, lad! There's a whole new world out here full o' women doing what you think of as man-only things, often better than the big-men.

"Girl"? T'ladywife is 59, man! Also, no Rambo but rather a fit & healthy 8st 10llb woman, admittedly rather uncompromising in her approach to wee patriarchs. Also an avid cyclist, as well as a swimmer and gym-goer. Somehow, despite being only a wee "girl" she's brave enough to risk dealing with aggresive man-things, in cars or otherwise. She uses a virtual pin to prick their vast egos.

cyclisto wrote:

How do you explain that women in bike industry are massively uninspired compared to men and why there are much less women cyclists on roads with no serious cycling infrastructure.

The effects of patriarchical culture that finds opportunity to denigrate and dissuade the female (and other non-male) genders from participating in a large range of what the big-men think of as "their" domains?

Now then, I must ask.  Are you a-one o' them Taters? If so, I recommend that you look up the meaning of the phrase: atavistic throwback.

I need a drink after wading through that.. suffice to say, no-one is holding women back; that's just lefty feminist nonsense; it's up to women to make it in whatever endeavour they choose to engage and if they fail, that's on them, not on the men that have long succeeded in those pursuits.

grOg wrote:

I need a drink after wading through that.. suffice to say, no-one is holding women back; that's just lefty feminist nonsense; it's up to women to make it in whatever endeavour they choose to engage and if they fail, that's on them, not on the men that have long succeeded in those pursuits.

Ah, you favour The Thatcher Thing mode of success - swing your handbag, bellow intolerant hoo-hah louder than any softlads you come across and genereally try very hard to behave even worserer than the men-things all about you?

Me, I like the bossy-but-loving ladies, giving me a good nannying for me own good.

BTW, I can't help feeling that you could do with a good nannying, before you hurt yersen as well as all the other infants.

"BTW, I can't help feeling that you could do with a good nannying,"
Of course you can't from your bubble.
"before you hurt yersen as well as all the other infants. " . It's the Patriarchy that's making you write such insults, right?

I guess they aren't very keen on equality and diversity courses in australia.

cyclisto wrote:

How do you explain that women in bike industry are massively uninspired compared to men

Errm, what? I mean... are they?

According to this road.cc article, yes
"On motivations to pursue working within the cycling industry, 63 per cent of men said they were inspired by a passion for cycling, while 45 per cent of women said the same."

@Cugel Ok we get it, patriarchal culture.

cyclisto wrote:

According to this road.cc article, yes "On motivations to pursue working within the cycling industry, 63 per cent of men said they were inspired by a passion for cycling, while 45 per cent of women said the same." @Cugel Ok we get it, patriarchal culture.

Like lots of surveys on its own that seems a bit odd (for both men and women -  I mean, the cycling industry isn't like working for Natwest or Tescos).  Of course this one was a "multiple answers" question.  But of note.

However:

Bicycle Association survey wrote:

Women, however, are twice as likely as men to describe working in the industry as ‘challenging’.

But why could that be?  Are they just not as into gear ratio chat?

Bicycle Association survey wrote:

Over half of women and ethnic minorities, and two thirds of those from non-heterosexual groups say they have been made to feel uncomfortable by the behaviour of others that was directly related to their gender, race, age, marital status, disability, pregnancy/maternity, religion or sexual orientation. Around half of these groups also say they have felt unfairly treated.

Now that's not limited to the world of cycling, but perhaps (for cultural / historic reasons) it's more marked here?  Given women gave a different profile of motivations - not just "I love bikes, me" - perhaps the following is relevant also:

Bicycle Association survey wrote:

Only 50% of women, but 70% of men, believe people are paid equally in their organisation. A third of female employees do not believe people are paid equally, while a fifth are unsure.

I mean - even 1/5 of your employees not being sure they're fairly paid...  I can't think of many jobs I've done where people didn't pay keen attention to their take home and how that compared with others doing the same job.

cyclisto wrote:

According to this road.cc article, yes "On motivations to pursue working within the cycling industry, 63 per cent of men said they were inspired by a passion for cycling, while 45 per cent of women said the same."

Without a breakdown of the job roles it's hard to make a fair comparison there. How many women being interviewed are in HR, accounts, marketing and other roles that are completely unconnected with cycling itself and require little to no cycling specific knowledge or experience? If anything I'd take that stat as circumstantial evidence that women are even more underrepresented in the cycling side of the cycling industry than the headline stats indicate.

Plus, stating the obvious, it's more difficult to stay inspired when you're more likely to be harassed and discriminated against.

Girls think about safety? tell that to my daughter who rode like a loony as a child and now as an adult fails to comprehend the danger of tram tracks, leading to an off that smashed her knee up..

grOg wrote:

Girls think about safety? tell that to my daughter who rode like a loony as a child and now as an adult fails to comprehend the danger of tram tracks, leading to an off that smashed her knee up..

Perhaps she's just trying desperately to get away from her Da?

Your first ramblings had some content in them. Now what's left is spitefullness and hate. Take your own advice, and go get some nannying. If not, I hope Road.cc mods are up to their task.

Don't agree with the knockabout aspect but the problem is - as best we have the statistics currently - Cugel is likely to have a point. Abuse of all kinds begins at home and and is shockingly common. Or should be shocking as we also know it doesn't help creating psychologically healthy adults.

https://refuge.org.uk/what-is-domestic-abuse/the-facts/

Which might eventually filter into women's behaviour in industries dominated by men.

Anyway, per the apparently female poster this kinda men-chat is a turn off, excluding and more an indication of where the issue lies.

Chrisonatrike, I am having difficulties in understanding you points - mainly because English is not my native language. But if you are suggesting that Cugel's comment about girl riding away from her dad amounts to anything more than a prejudiced slur I believe you are giving way too much credit to the person. I am not trying to argue against the facts you linked - I am challenging the foundations of Cugel's writing: connections between facts and comments should hinge on more than "might".
I really struggle with undertanding you last argument, for example what is "this kinda men-chat"? But from what i gather it does indicate some sort of broad-sweeping accusation that I myself tend to find problematic, off puting and probably disagreeing with it to some extent.

Destroyer666 wrote:

Your first ramblings had some content in them. Now what's left is spitefullness and hate. Take your own advice, and go get some nannying. If not, I hope Road.cc mods are up to their task.

Destroyer!? 666!!?

Now then, old harbinger of the divil ......

You mistake mockery of the Groggy one's pokes and jibes for spitefulness. Also, you mistake the teasing about his huffpuffery remarks for hate.

Of course, I do realise that all you tighty-righty fast-asleep-and-still-dreamin-of-unicorns' folk like to employ extreme hyperbole when whining about those who dare to disagree with your far-rightful postures and remarks, not to mention your freedumb to cast nasty, er, spites and hates when doubted in the slightest degree concerning your many dogmas but ..... if Groggy wants to play at skoolyard yelling, I'm his skoolboy!

Anyway, try to calm down a bit. If there's no nanny to stroke you, try doing it to yourself.  What's that, you already do?  

Your statements went and go beyond mockery and teasing. All the language tricks and other efforts to be quirky or whatever do not mask or do anything beneficial to the nastyness and prejudice that ooze from the many labels and know-it-all comments that are all over your texts. You seem to be playing an endless record about your own dogma. No doubt you like the sound and believe in it, but I am tuning out.

Destroyer666 wrote:

Your statements went and go beyond mockery and teasing. All the language tricks and other efforts to be quirky or whatever do not mask or do anything beneficial to the nastyness and prejudice that ooze from the many labels and know-it-all comments that are all over your texts. You seem to be playing an endless record about your own dogma. No doubt you like the sound and believe in it, but I am tuning out.

Well, I am a blatherskite, undeniably. On and on and on and on .....

Tuning out, are 'ee?  Were you ever tuned in, though? Perhaps you were twiddling your dial in an attempt to find Rush Limbaugh progs and landed here by accident? Ole Rush would likely be more to your taste, as he bites and spits at imaginary libtards (whatever they are). 

Alas, he died of a particularly bilious vent o' his spleen about someone who laughed at wot he sed.

There's always Truth Social, you know ...... ?

cugel wrote:

Destroyer666 wrote:

[...]All the language tricks and other efforts to be quirky or whatever [...] the many labels and know-it-all comments that are all over your texts. You seem to be playing an endless record about your own dogma. [...]

Well, I am a blatherskite, undeniably.

Sounds like you've made an impression on someone.