Are women, either naturally or programmed, more sensitive to comments? If told my wife (or any female I know) she was fat it would chops and cold shoulder for dinner. If I told my mates the same it would just get the same in return.
Here in Germany I never get comments shouted from cars or pedestrians, my girlfriend get some but only maybe a few a year. In England I probably got a similar level to what my girlfriend gets in Germany, but if cycling alone in the UK my girlfriend gets a worrying amount of sexual comments directed at her, enough for her not to cycle alone anymore, she can handle the comments but is afraid of what the next step might be for these creeps.
We get roughly the same amount of close passes, bad driving etc
Is it OK to say that I cringe when I read rubbish like that? Sometimes women just need to WTFU and ignore stupid words shouted by stupid males.
THIS
I do not fall into the delicate snowflake desciption of women cyclists in this article. I have had my fair share of abuse, but I doubt it's any more or less than any other cyclist who dares to take up space on the road.
mattsccm- why on earth would a club not want any women?
A lot of these type of articles seem to take the view that women need to be cosseted and cajoled into riding and the equipment should be pink/purple with the odd flower motif here and there to appease their sensibilities and they should be shown the ways of the road in a nice all female non threatening environment.
I find this depresssing for a couple,of reasons, mainly because women are not all the same, some may want to be wrapped up in cotton wool and treated like a weaker sex but an awful lot just want to crack on a ride their bikes with whoever isn't a arsehole without being patronised and fussed over.
And because these kind of rides shouldn't actually exist, the fact they do suggests there is an attitude problem towards women and to a lesser extent towards men, what's wrong with just going for a ride with your mates and not being a dick (whatever the sex)?
Don't scratch a match on the seat of your bloomers
😆
Don't appear to be up on "records" and "record smashing." That is sporty
Stravaaaaaaa!!!
I find this depresssing for a couple,of reasons, mainly because women are not all the same, some may want to be wrapped up in cotton wool and treated like a weaker sex
Indeed. Perhaps instead of talking about 'women cyclists' we should simply be talking about 'novices' or 'less confident cyclists'. Who could be male or female. And the hardcore can also be male or female.
They rest is common to male and female.
That said however, many women are in a different position to many men whilst out on the roads or indeed any other unprotected situation. The men saying 'oh it's the same for men' are talking from a position of male privilege. If you don't know what that is, then that's because you have it.
And the hardcore can also be male or female.
Well, I was lucky enough to have a starting line pass for a stage of the Tour Down Under this year. By far and away the most "hardcore" pro / ex-pro I met there was Anna Meares
The men saying 'oh it's the same for men' are talking from a position of male privilege.
I think that's highly context dependent. My fate when an idiot opens their door on me is not dependent upon whether I have a cock, boobs, neither or both.
I know a bunch of fatties who don't ride and slim fit girls who do, they're asking for the sexy comments.
They appear to have asked women who do cycle why women who don't, don't. Might as well have asked a man!
In terms of commuting/transport I'd hazard a guess that there is a "family pressures" factor. The reality is if you look at the school gates or nursery collections/drop offs there are still many more women there than men. If you go to the weekend clubs for kids, birthday parties etc. you'll find a female bias doing the logistics there too. These things come with strict deadlines and busy lives - that might not fit with commuting by bike. Transporting kids by bike is feasible but is more faff, more risk perception, and harder work. Whilst technically possible with multiple kids - only the hardest core cyclist would do that on a regular basis.
In terms of 'sport/leisure' cycling there are similar issues. You need to fit it in around a busy life.
Are women, either naturally or programmed, more sensitive to comments?
Massive can of worms there. You're descrbing what has been traditionally called trait neuroticism and some studies and resports suggest that women are more likely to score higher on neuroticism, when meausred using established personality profiles, than men.
This NOT to say that women are 'neurotic'; that is categorically not what is being suggsted; neuroticism can be defined a number of ways but one of them is the tendency to see threat or hostility where non exists (relevant to this debate). It's also variously described as a predliction for anxiety, stress, mood swings, jealousy etc.
I was listening to an episode of 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' where they were talking about perception (episode is 'Through the Windows of Perception' if you're interested) and one of the situaitons explained was the evolutionary mechanism that links your sense of power or status to your liklihood of perceiving risk.
If an individual finds themselves in a low power situation, it makes them far more likely to see threats where non exist. This is simply an evolutionary survival mechanism, since seeing a threat that's not really there is a far less bad outcome than not seeing a threat that really is there. This apparently has been shown to hold for any number of situations, including social status.
If women feel they are in a low power situation when riding a bike, then that's almost certainly going to make them perceive risk and take umbrage more readily than if men feel more empowered.
If this is true, then the conclusion has to be 'how do we make women feel more empowered to ride bikes', to which the answer has to be 'get everyone using the roads to do so more safely and with more courtesy'.
The benefit of this conclusion is that everyone is safer as a result and not just the cyclists.
On the rare occasions when I pass other cyclists on climbs, I do think about pausing for a chat, or making an encouraging comment as I pass. And thinking about it, I to take the gender of the person I am passing into account in deciding what approach to take.
Is it OK to say that I cringe when I read rubbish like that? Sometimes women just need to WTFU
+1. Just HTFU and get on with it, and give some shit back if you have to. I'm a chippy cow at the best of times though 😆
Some weird comments on here. So an article looking for why there are so few women cycling, looks into the reasons and comes up with abuse and danger - people say "Well those apply to men!" what? How is that even relevant?
then the conclusion has to be 'how do we make women feel more empowered to ride bikes', to which the answer has to be 'get everyone using the roads to do so more safely and with more courtesy'.
Completely true and utterly impossible.
[b]poly[/b]
I agree to an extent. Routines, family / time / financial pressures make a difference.
I work at an expensive school. Often fathers drop children off on their way to work. I guess they're likely to be at the top of their professions and not clocking on - off. Flexitime and judged on results.
There are also a good number of mothers who take their children to school and leave their cars parked so that they can head off on a ride after drop off.
Maybe working hours or commuting or salaries are sexist.
My fate when an idiot opens their door on me is not dependent upon whether I have a cock, boobs, neither or both.
I'm not talking about SMIDSY, I'm talking about abusive comments and harassment etc..
My wife maintains it because women are more sensible and risk averse. They take one look at the cycling infrastructure in the UK and say I'm not prepared to put my children or myself in that dangerous position. certainly that is the way she feels and won't cycle on British roads because of the bad design and traffic. Her persepctive is that any method of transport that requires a helmet and hi vis to protect her from the inattention of others is ridiculous.
I on the other hand, whilst not happy about the situation am prepared to take the risk. Neither of us will let our children cycle on the road where we live.
It's really not that risky though. Plus a lot of people I've spoken to aren't aware that the maze of back streets in many cities that you'd never drive down can actually make a good low traffic route that is very safe indeed.
[i]"Her persepctive is that any method of transport that requires a helmet and hi vis to protect her from the inattention of others is ridiculous"[/i]
Yes, and that neatly sums up the problem with riding in the UK, compared with the Netherlands, for example.
geetee1972 wrote:
Indeed, there is research that shows drivers are more careful around female cyclists. I can't find it but there was some research done a few years ago by a bloke who documented his experiences of close passes while wearing a long haired wig.
Here you go: [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm ]BBC article[/url]
And especially for all you guys fed up of close passes: [url= https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-built-in-wig/ ]Safety helmet[/url] 😉
(I've just realised why TJ, with his luxuriant flowing locks, doesn't feel the need to wear a helmet 😀 )
Yes it does Esme. My wife is Dutch and has probably cycled more miles than many people in the UK. She grew up cycling 10km each way to school then college and then university. She toured the country by bike. She still works in Holland occasionally and always texts me a photo of her cycling to the office on a rented bike. Bad weather has never phased her and she loves to cycle. We have cycle toured in several European countries and only the UK has this affect on her. In her opinion the drivers here are pychopathic and the lack of infrastructure criminal. All this is despite her being a huge anglophile (well up to the brexit vote anyway).
How is that even relevant?
Because if the experience is the same then it's not the experience that causes low female participation, it's some other variable not accounted for in the article.
[quote=winston ]Her persepctive is that any method of transport that requires a helmet and hi vis to protect her from the inattention of others is ridiculous.
and right here you have the reason promotion of helmets and hi vis for cycling is a negative thing
cranberry - Member"I've even had 'keep pedalling, nearly there' - from a male cyclist. They wouldn't have said it to another man, it's so patronising and uncalled for.WTAF! It seems that it is wonderful when other women do it, but horribly patronising when a man does it.
Oh and I've had people do it to me when I am slowly and sweatily trying to get one over on gravity and it isn't patronising or sexist, unless you are looking for offence and excuses.
Those people who did it to you, were they by any chance overwhelmingly - or even exclusively - men?
As is implicit in the comment geetee1972 makes about women potentially being more likely to take umbrage than men, you cannot ignore the fact that an umprompted comment like 'keep pedalling, nearly there' from a stranger may be perceived and received very differently by different people (even if the person making the statement was trying to be encouraging rather than patronising or mocking). It can be difficult enough sometimes for a man to judge the nuance/intent of such 'banter' or encouragement from another man if they are strangers, and frankly I would probably only be confident that it was encouragement if it was made to me by another cyclist.
I cannot ever recall any such exhortation being made to me by a woman (cyclist or otherwise), and I can understand how a woman might take offence if she would never speak similarly to a man in those circumstances (and the fact that most/almost all women do not so, is as significant as many of them taking offence at such comments from men: which sex gets to decide what is and is not appropriate behaviour between the sexes?).
It's absurd to pretend that there is not in some situations a general imbalance between the sexes, and to consider that that would not or should not have an impact on how we treat and react to members of the opposite sex in those situations. In other words, if you are thinking of saying something that could easily be misconstrued or give offence, you either need to know your audience well enough to be confident that they would not take it the wrong way, or you need to be that very rare person: someone who is not only extremely encouraging and positive towards others, but also whose encouragement is unmistakeably genuine and honest even to a complete stranger.
I wonder how I would react if Nicole Cooke rode up alongside me and gave me some advice about improving my position and technique (before riding off and leaving me far behind). Taking it further, how many male racing cyclists have female coaches?
[i]Because if the experience is the same then it's not the experience that causes low female participation, it's some other variable not accounted for in the article.[/i]
What? Because something doesn't effect men, then that means it doesn't effect women and therefore it must be something else? Jeez, I must be thick, because that sounds nonsensical to me.
What? Because something doesn't effect men, then that means it doesn't effect women and therefore it must be something else? Jeez, I must be thick, because that sounds nonsensical to me.
That's not what I sad. What I said was that if the input variable is the same for men and women, but the response to it is different, then it's not the input variable that is the reason for the response, it's something else that's not been taken into consideration.
Nope, don't get that at all. Sounds like you've said the same thing again.
Men and women have different responses. Yeah, and there is [i]no problem[/i] with male participation, so it's the [i]male response[/i] that is irrelevant, not the input variable.
I think this article/blogpost makes a good point: https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/why-doesnt-population-x-cycle/
Because it’s not just x who don’t cycle. Black and minority ethnic populations don’t cycle, but neither do white populations. Women don’t cycle, but neither do men. And the number one reason all of these populations don’t cycle is the same
We're way over at the right of the chart below.
[img] 
[/img]
80% of people on bikes might be male and so we ask "why don't women ride?", but 95% of men aren't regular bike riders, and 98% of women aren't regular bike riders (all numbers made up for illustration). If we made things completely equal between the sexes, you'd still have 95% of people not riding a bike.
If you look at somewhere like the Netherlands and Copenhagen, the average person on a bike* is more likely to be female than not. Because women are more likely to make the sort of linked, short trips with a small amount of 'luggage' (a toddler in a seat, trailer or bakfiets, a bag or two of shopping, PE kit for the kit just old enough to ride their own bike) that are perfect to do by bike. But in those places, it's safe and easy to make the journey by bike. In the UK it isn't, so we quite understandably choose to get in our cars instead.
As the link above says, it's not about diminishing the problems that women have with harassment, aggression, etc, but we need to not lose sight of the fact that most people aren't riding bikes. Rather than saying "what % of cyclists are women?" we should be saying "what % of people are riding bikes?" and do what we can to get the number higher, and on a similar level between different sexes, races, income levels etc.
*not 'cyclist', it's not a hobby or a sport, just a form of transport
Nope, don't get that at all. Sounds like you've said the same thing again.
OK, I'll try to put it a different way.
The article is arguing that a key reason for the low participation of women in cycling is because they are exposed to sexist attitudes and harassment while out on the bike. The definition of ‘sexist’ is treating one gender differently from another and in this situation what we are seeing is that men are reporting very similar experiences, so while the behaviour being reported is highly negative and toxic, it’s not actually ‘sexist’ (though it is harrassment).
So if men and women are experiencing the same thing, but the reaction of women is different to men, then the explanation is that women experience things differently to men and are, in this instance at least, more likely to find that experience negative. It’s been asked why and the suggestions offered were that innate trait differences across broad populations of men and women cause men and women to experience things differently.
None of this means we shouldn’t take note of the problem and seek to address it because by doing so, we ALL benefit. But I think we can rule out the grand tyrannical patriarchy argument because the evidence just doesn’t support it (and it is getting really quite boring.)
[responding to bails post] OK, fair enough - so the article about : "About 50% fewer women than men cycle twice a week or more...and when it comes to cycling on the roads, the number drops again." is pointless.
Not worth even thinking about. (not sarcasm. Moving on!)
Because if the experience is the same then it's not the experience that causes low female participation, it's some other variable not accounted for in the article.
This is very close to victim blaming. Arguing that men experience the same/are exposed to the same risks, and that because they respond generally as a group in a particular way that is different to how many women respond, does not mean that the women's response is inappropriate (or that the men's response reflects a better/healthier attitude to risk, because they ignore the risk or are more willing to put up with it).
What? Because something doesn't effect men, then that means it doesn't effect women and therefore it must be something else? Jeez, I must be thick, because that sounds nonsensical to me.
No, I don't think you're thick. But deliberately or not you are not understanding what was posted.
Most of the factors that put many women off cycling also put many men off, right down to inappropriate comments on appearance. Most of the danger of riding a bike on the road is totally indiscriminate, and there is plenty anecdotal evidence analogous to the helmet debate that suggests that men in lycra are actually more likely to have close shaves due to the misguided perception that their appearance indicates they're experienced and therefore a close pass is less likely an issue.
I do accept that there may be many reasons why women may not feel comfortable riding alone that would be similar to why they do not feel safe running or walking alone either. But just as the first point is not a gender thing, this last point is sadly not just a cycling thing.
Perversely, the abuse that males get for being cyclists (that they would not normally receive when not on the bike) is probably an uncomfortable insight for most of us into some of the abuse women get in all walks of life on a daily basis.
OK, fair enough - so the article about : "About 50% fewer women than men cycle twice a week or more...and when it comes to cycling on the roads, the number drops again." is pointless.
Well it's not pointless if what it does is force us to ask the question 'why are't more people cycling'. And if in seeing such a big gap in female participation we then conclude it's becuase the negative experience of being on the road affects them much more than men, then that's a good thing to realise.
I've ridden bikes my whole life, more at some points than others but always I've felt vulnerable, harrassed and at risk. That negative experience hasn't always put me off, but it does to some extent now.
So no not pointless, actually quite important.
does not mean that the women's response is inappropriate
No it doesn't I quite agree and I clearly didn't say that. The response is what the response is.
What is innapropriate is classifying the problem wrongly because of it.
The article is arguing that a key reason for the low participation of women in cycling is because they are exposed to sexist attitudes and harassment while out on the bike. The definition of ‘sexist’ is treating one gender differently from another and [b]in this situation what we are seeing is that men are reporting very similar experiences[/b], so while the behaviour being reported is highly negative and toxic, it’s not actually ‘sexist’ (though it is harrassment).
Do you receive as much in the way of unsolicited comments while riding from women as from men? Or does your definition of 'very similar experiences' equal men and women both being treated the same [i]by other men[/i].
But you're turning into a "why don't people cycle" when that's not what it is!
It's why don't more [i]women[/i] cycle. Specifically.
Why don't more people cycle is a different question, a different article. But clearly not a different STW thread!
Do you receive as much in the way of unsolicited comments while riding from women as from men?
Yes though obviously they were different in their nature. The comments I got from the women in my office were awful and yes they were sexual in nature, for example the image of Polish cycling team i used to receive in email.
It's why don't more women cycle. Specifically.
It is and think the answer being offered is 'the same reasons as why more men don't cycle it's just that it affects women more'.
It does read as if the article is written along the lines of:
“women don’t cycle because of sexism” but with (oh, and road safety might be a bit of a problem too) almost mentioned as an aside.
All the data I’ve seen suggests that the biggest barrier to cycling (for all groups) is road safety (or perhaps more accurately perceived risk)
I suspect that the point above about women being more risk averse is a good one (and common across other areas). British social attitudes survey tells us that:
[i]In 2016, 59% of adults aged 18+ in England agreed that “it is too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads”. Women were more likely than men to agree (68% to 50%) and people were more likely to agree if they were older. Cyclists are far less likely to believe that cycling was too dangerous for them than non-cyclists (39% to 68%).[/i]
Interestingly, national travel survey tells us that:
[i]In England 2016, 65% of cyclists usually cycled either mainly on the road (35%) or mainly alongside the road side (30%) (on pavements, cycle path or cycle lanes that were not part of a road).
[b]The proportion of cyclists usually cycling off the road in parks, open country or private land has increased over the last ten years, from 19% in 2006 to 24% in 2016.[/b][/i]
Which is interesting on an MTB Access front, I’ll have to see if this breaks down with a significant change in women’s cycling
It is and think the answer being offered is 'the same reasons as why more men don't cycle it's just that it affects women more'.
This
+1. Just HTFU and get on with it, and give some shit back if you have to. I'm a chippy cow at the best of times though
Go kayla. 😀
geeteeSo if men and women are experiencing the same thing, but the reaction of women is different to men, then the explanation is that women experience things differently to men and are, in this instance at least, more likely to find that experience negative.
You buried it well, but this harks back to your never ending boys are better than girls argument.
As pointed out above, it smacks of victim blaming.
Do you receive as much in the way of unsolicited comments while riding from women as from men?Yes though obviously they were different in their nature. The comments I got from the women in my office were awful and yes they were sexual in nature, for example the image of Polish cycling team i used to receive in email.
Being on the receiving end of that sort of behaviour from those women in your office sounds very unpleasant. However, I think that it is potentially much worse for women cyclists on the receiving end of unsolicited and unwanted comments from complete strangers while out riding, given that they are likely to be alone at times during the ride and consequently be and feel more vulnerable to any actual or perceived potential physical threat (most leisure cyclists prefer to ride in the countryside, rather than in conurbations), and given that there is an asymmetry in the potential worst case scenario of any sexually abusive behaviour between men and women, i.e. the fear for women is of being raped - a fear which would never occur to a male cyclist. Even though rape may be a very rare crime, the fear of it can significantly influence women's behaviour, e.g. in the same way many women would not go out alone late at night.
You buried it well, but this harks back to your never ending boys are better than girls argument.
I've never said that. I've always said that there are small but important differences in personality traitrs between all men and all women and that this is perhaps a more correct explanation for why you see the differences in life experiences and outcomes rather than because of some global tyrannical capitalist patriarchy.
I have denied the reality of there even being such a thing as patriarchy and fully acknowledg that this is deeply unpopular thing to say. But I do not deny that the experiences of men and women are very different, by and large, and that we should wherevever possible try very hard to create equality of opportunity.
Even though rape may be a very rare crime, the fear of it can significantly influence women's behaviour
I completely agree. It's interseting though isn't it that men are far more likely to be the victims of violence but far less likely to fear it. We're back to the perception of risk and the negative traits of low agreeableness/high neuroticism debate.
I've always said that there are small but important differences in personality traitrs between all men and all women
On average, maybe, but definitely not ALL men and ALL women.
