In the UK, rape must be by a penis.
my mistake, I was thinking of rape in terms of the mental impact on someone as it seems to me the mental assault aspect of it the biggest issue.
ust straight in there with "Rape must be by a penis". Yeah.
an consomethingion of a marriage needs at least an inch of penetration (or did when I read the book written by the dad of the guy that started Richer Sounds.)
sbob - Member
Indeed, and by definition if there is a substantially different outcome between two distinct groups, such as men and women, then that is a very clear indicator that there was not equality of opportunity in the first place.Only if the two groups behave the same, which they don't. They are distinct, different, by definition. You have concluded too quickly, and without consideration to other, quite obvious, possibilities.
Generally speaking, men and women are different, behave in different ways and display different qualities. Science has observed this.
I am in no way denying the existence of inequality of opportunity, but you clearly don't understand how different the sexes are, and how relatively small differences in behaviour can result in very large observable differences of outcome.
I deliberately used the phrase 'very clear indicator' rather than 'proof' (and ironically you have accused me of concluding "too quickly, and without consideration to other, quite obvious, possibilities.").
When there is a significant statistical difference between such groups, it may be wrong to jump to the conclusion that the difference is simply down to something like innate differences in behaviour and the general different qualities the groups typically exhibit. I've read often that some of the behavioural differences [i]within[/i] a group of men (or women), can be much greater than the average difference [i]between[/i] men and wonmen.
So the fact that far fewer women cycle than men, might be down to the fact that fewer women than men like cycling as an activity, but it is important sometimes to go beyond that and consider [i]why[/i] they don't like it, which might be due to factors other than a pair of XX chromosomes. For example:
1. Cycling has been a predominantly male activity, which has resulted in numerous aspects of the activity being biased towards men, e.g. predominantly male clubs, bikes and components predominantly designed to fit men, far more money and opportunity for men to earn a living racing bikes etc. All these things are self-reinforcing, and while the situation now is far better than it was, the last 50 years has had a huge legacy effect.
2. Maybe girls are less likely than than boys to be given a bike and taught to ride when young? If that were so, it might have a huge impact on the pool size of potential adult women cyclists.
Are you doubting the definition of rape Dez?
I deliberately used the phrase 'very clear indicator'
Which you shouldn't have done if you only meant "possibly suggests".
🙂
Are you only reading a bit of my post makecoldplay?
The other sentence didn't make sense without me clarifying what you meant.
The company will think you're mental if ...
If rape must involve a penis.
If the definition of rape is outdated.
If a thread about women on bikes has moved on to rape stats and accusations of misogyny, the patriarchy and other [off] topics.
Getting back on topic, if - as per vickypea's sample and kerley's wife - the key reason for fewer women cycling is concern about the safety of the roads, that raises some interesting questions:
It might just reflect different levels of risk perception and aversion between men and women, but I suspect possibly not. I think that those of us who are already cyclists (men and women) are inured to the risks of the roads we ride on locally, and those risks are just as much a barrier to taking up the activity for men as women.
Arguably, it's not important whether non-cyclists or women have a different perception of the risk, or whose perception is most valid. What matters is the fact that the difference between the numbers of men and women cycling could be used as leverage by the cycling lobby when campaigning for improved road safety.
In other words, if a study showed that the numbers of male cyclists would increase from, say, 5% to 8% if road safety were improved, it's still small percentages for a minority activity, and unlikely to gain much political traction. In contrast if a study that showed that there is disproportionately low participation by women which could be corrected by improved road safety, then that might have much more political traction (instead of being about general participation in a very minority activity which has powerful interests ranged against it [roads lobby, many drivers etc.], it's become a question of sex equality and discrimination).
The other sentence didn't make sense without me clarifying what you meant.
Oh, it did. Really.
*Draws attention to article on [url= http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/beyond-fear-and-feelings-an-evidence-based-look-at-why-women-arent-cycling/ ]the front page[/url]*
Runs away.
In the UK women can have penises therefore they can in fact commit the crime of rape.In the UK, rape must be by a penis. Therefore women can't rape. Men can be victims but women can't commit the crime.
Thanks for that [b]stwhannah[/b]. What are your thoughts? 🙂
In contrast if a study that showed that there is disproportionately low participation by women which could be corrected by improved road safety,
That would be something we all benefit by but the problem is that you wouldn't equalise the numbers in this way because you don't address the underlying difference which is that men and women evaluate risk differently (because of relative testosterone levels). Unfortunately, the difference in risk perception will still exist and that, in theory would still play out in the difference in participation levels.
However, if by using the gender argument we can make the roads safer, if that is what it takes to persuade people to change, the persuade governments to take the issue more seriously, then we should crack on.
you don't address the underlying difference which is that men and women evaluate risk differently (because of relative testosterone levels). Unfortunately, the difference in risk perception will still exist and that, in theory would still play out in the difference in participation levels.
Read the article and the linked article by Alix Stredwick. Women experience higher numbers of close passes, which has nothing to do with their testosterone levels, but is apparently because they are likely to be riding more slowly than men. That in turn is because a lot of their riding is slower utility cycling, e.g. taking the kids to school and picking up some shopping on the way to/from work etc. ('trip-chaining' as the article calls it). As the linked article notes, cycling levels by men and women are pretty much equal in Germany, Holland and Denmark (55% women in Holland) thanks to their better and safer cycling infrastructure.
The implication that more of those faster men will probably be leisure/sport cyclists on lightweight bikes in lycra/race kit, unlike women utility cyclists, is not really covered in the articles in depth, but I think a lot of people who take up cycling as a leisure/sport activity are likely to have used a bike for utility riding or commuting. So increasing the numbers of women utility cyclists may result in increases in other types of cycling by women.
On a side note, many years ago I was collared by my boss to go with him to a bike shop and help him choose a mountain bike. While there he also bought a mountain bike for his wife so that they could ride together. His bike was twice the price of hers and correspondingly lighter/nicer to ride. He also bought a child seat, which of course he told the shop to fit to her bike. I am sure that the fact that she did not ride it much was because of her low testosterone levels and the impact they had on her risk aversion, and had nothing to do with its weight.
The framebuilder Tony Oliver summed it up well in his book Touring Bikes:
Many couples find their speed and abilities different...It puzzles me that in many cases he has a super all-singing frameset with components to match, while she has cast-offs, cheaper tubing and a rotten design. No wonder riding capabilities appear different. Gents, if your companion is of a weaker disposition, then she needs all the help she can get - you ride the junk and get her on to 753.
Not quite what the article and linked report say. Women [i]reported[/i] more close passes but we have no way of knowing if they were physically closer than passes on men or it's just that men have a greater tolerance and so report less. That [i]could[/i] be related to testosterone levels. AFAIK there has only been that one tiny, flawed study involving the guy wearing a wig that close to understanding what's happening in practice.Read the article and the linked article by Alix Stredwick. Women experience higher numbers of close passes,
Not quite what the article and linked report say. Women reported more close passes but we have no way of knowing if they were physically closer than passes on men or it's just that men have a greater tolerance and so report less. That could be related to testosterone levels. AFAIK there has only been that one tiny, flawed study involving the guy wearing a wig that close to understanding what's happening in practice.
Hmmm, yes. The linked article possibly overstated the findings, e.g. the use of the word proven below in relation to bad driving.
The experience of female cyclists facing disproportionate harassment and bad driving was proven in Aldred’s Near Miss Project. That women were almost twice as likely as men to be subjected to frightening ‘near miss’ incidents seemed mainly linked to the lower average speed reported by female respondents, compared with the men who took part.
As you note, the reports are inherently subjective, and having very quickly skim read [url= http://www.nearmiss.bike/academic-papers/ ]the papers[/url], one of them does state
More research could usefully...attempt more systematically to triangulate ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ data and thus establish, for example, whether women experience more close passes than men per mile, or whether women and men have different definitions of what constitutes a ‘close pass’
although if the experiences of close passes was heavily related to the type of cycling, and women only experience more because they undertake more rides of the type more prone to close passes, I would have thought that it would be possible to use the results from men undertaking similar types of rides as a control (maybe they did, as I say I have only very quickly skim read the papers).
I imagine that more and better data will become available as cameras are used for such studies, but I can't help thinking that the greater cycling participation by women in Germany, Holland and Denmark is compelling evidence of the impact of better and safer infrastructure. Rather than using cameras and lasers to measure the actual proximity of a close pass and see whether the same proximity results in different levels of fear in men and women, we need the political will/popular support/money to start building better infrastructure for cycling.
