But you are fine with how we have got to where we are today? Decades, centuries of straight white men being given every advantage over women/lgbt/BAME? Only now the aforementioned straight white men hold the vast majority of the power and the disadvantaged communities are trying to redress the balance it’s become immoral?
History has never evenly advantaged anyone as a class. For example, more Europeans were taken as slaves by the barbary pirates than the number of slaves transported to the United States during the Atlantic slave trade.
The thing about penalising individuals for the supposed 'advantages' of identity is that they can't help their gender, or race or whatever. Is that 'fair'?
The thing about penalising individuals for the supposed ‘advantages’ of identity is that they can’t help their gender, or race or whatever. Is that ‘fair’?
You're not penalising their chances, you are levelling up the disadvantaged.
I know it's a cartoon, but is the 'Dad' disadvantaged by not having a box to stand on?
You’re not penalising their chances, you are levelling up the disadvantaged.
I know it’s a cartoon, but is the ‘Dad’ disadvantaged by not having a box to stand on?
The cartoons of 'equity' are entirely misleading because the cartoon depicts individuals but 'equity' deals with the average outcomes of groups. Far from 'giving people what they need' equity actively seeks to deprive members of advantaged/oppressor groups of concrete resources hence the go-to choice of affirmative action to achieve anything.
So back to the OP. There are plenty of courses for middle aged white males to go on, that are (I think we agree) inaccessible to the minority groups in the title.
Are these courses being withdrawn? No, more course are being put on that are accessible. Where's the active intent to deprive them of resources / possibilities? In cartoon style, that would be making Dad stand in a hole as well as providing a box for the kid to stand on.
Firstly, the existing courses aren't formally inaccessible to women or LGBT people.
Secondly, you don't get to say that discrimination at my shop is ok because there is another shop you can go to in the next town.
@i_scoff_cake
Re your point on slavery, to the US? Maybe. To the new world? Not a chance.
Perhaps, instead of worrying about white men being discriminated against, you could take a minute to think about the 40million people who are thought to be enslaved today, 75% of whom are thought to be female. A percentage of whom would work as sex slaves and wouldn't even get a chance to identify as LGBQ+, trans* or non-binary, never mind take a cycle mechanic course.
the existing courses aren’t formally inaccessible to women or LGBT people
Which is exactly the point. The domination by the advantaged majorities to all intents and purposes means they are.
In cartoon style - everyone's free to stand on the ground, no-one's being made to stand in a hole, so no-one should be allowed to stand on a box.
The domination by the advantaged majorities to all intents and purposes means they are.
That's a baseless claim.
That’s a baseless claim.
If you really believe that there's no point trying to persuade you otherwise. Did you read the article?
That’s a baseless claim.
The fact that there is demand for these courses from the target groups suggests that the claim may gave some basis after all.
The fact that there is demand for these courses from the target groups suggests that the claim may gave some basis after all
People demand Scientology courses too.
@i_scoff_cake
Ever asked any women, trans* or non-binary folk what they might think?
As for your attempt to try to suggest that more white people were enslaved than black, because that is to my mind what you were trying to do, shame on you.
Firstly, the existing courses aren’t formally inaccessible to women or LGBT people.
I mean, that fact you had to qualify that with "formally".
Great article and amazing initiative.
It's about ensuring people have role models, seeing people who are similar to you do things you possibly wouldn't have done.
It's raising awareness and saying 'this sport is also for you'. It's giving people a kickstart in to something they previously would have felt it wasn't for them as one group dominated participation. How is that a bad thing?
I find it telling that as a woman and member of the LGBT+ community, i_scoff_cake has consistently ignored my posts. Says it all!
It's great to see lots of enlightened views on here though. And hopefully lots of other members, who perhaps hadn't given this topic much thought previously, will now be convinced or further convinced about the value of schemes such as these.
Without initiatives like this any disadvantaged groups by whatever metric you define, would continue to be disadvantaged indefinitely.
If you feel that you're in another particular disadvantaged group (by whatever definition) that isn't receiving support, by all means let everyone know, raise awareness, tell STW editors, maybe there's something we can do for you as well.
This doesn’t really support the theory that a nefarious cabal of male bike mechanics are depriving women of the skills to use their bikes. It’s a trend that starts young.
What that statistic demonstrates is precisely the problem: That women and even young girls are put off cycling by society. We've got countless testimonies to this how the gender makeup of groups affects outcomes. It's very obvious.
To all those who don't agree with this solution - you don't really understand what the problem is. You think you do, but you don't. It's time you listened to those who have experienced it, rather than just trying to tell them they're wrong.
I could put it more simply. The reason we need positive discrimination is to redress the balance caused by millennia of negative discrimination. I don't see how this is difficult to understand.
@molgrips, the difficulty isn't in the understanding I feel, it's more in the inability to accept it.
This explains the whole situation well
Would you pay £x for an activity that put you in an environment where odds on you will be the odd one out, likely the butt of various jokes and unwanted advances.
Or would you pay £x for an activity that put you in an environment where everyone is from the same background as you, has similar interests and you all immediately get on like old buddies with plenty of banter.
Is one not capable of being the other then ?
I mean as in the attitudes of each being the only difference in your point/argument.
A you have a cycling club, and B you have a cycling club, but you're saying its the club and not the attitude of the members when clearly it is the attitude of the members that is the crux of this.
But even that is hypocritical in its being. Must we then have a myriad of different clubs. One for competitive, one to potter along discussing the events of the day or handbags or something else. one for white folk, one for BAME, one for trans, and so on until each individual group is catered for. But to do that means you have to discriminate. bame isnt allowed int eh trans club, unless they are trans in which case we need a further club, bame trans.
Take stw
Where is the trans, non binary section ? Theres a main forum for 'everyone' but according to the vast number arguing on this topic, that cant be allowed. 😕
I'm kind of with some of the points of Scoffy Cakey.
'To avoid discrimination, you first must discriminate'. How can that be logical 😕
Because the point is to tackle discrimination, rather than avoid/ignore/turn a blind eye to it.
It's and illustrative device to make the point that the same activity clearly had different values to different people based on the experience they will likely or perceive they will likely have of it.
If you can't even be bothered to read to the end of the post then I'm not sure why I felt the need to argue with you, it's not worth the effort.
@i_scoff_cake - oh dear, you've used so many words to say so little of any worth.
Why is it you work alone?
The fact that there is demand for these courses from the target groups suggests that the claim may gave some basis after all
People demand Scientology courses too.
Maybe some people are interested in learning about Scientology. I'm not, personally, but I don't see why I might need to object to anyone who is. See also flower arranging and woodwork.
I'm not gay, trans or inter either, but I'm happy that those who are can access courses in an environment they are comfortable with. Neither the courses nor the people attending them are any threat to me or my training needs.
That’s a baseless claim.
I suppose the simplest way to test this is through uptake of the course. If it's a failure then I suppose you can claim total parity had already been achieved and the existing provision was totally adequate.
If the uptake is significant that would indicate there was a previously unmet need.
Either way at least one side of the discussion is testing their assertion...
I genuinely don't understand the "anti" position here. It's not like the creation of these courses is preventing them from attending a course themselves should they want to do one. Granting a additional gateway to a group that may need encouragement does not deny or otherwise restrict already established gateways. (ie it's in addition to, rather than instead of) The aim is to attract a broader selection of the population into the same qualification. I don't understand the objection to that.
They are worried that in the future, straight white men will suffer the same injustices that LGBTQ+, trans*, BAME and female folk have dealt with forever.
Take stw
Where is the trans, non binary section ? Theres a main forum for ‘everyone’ but according to the vast number arguing on this topic, that cant be allowed.
There are certainly trans members who have left because of the behaviour of the white cis male majority of users.
Perhaps there should be a section/topic for minority groups to discuss cycling without us loud white cis males getting in the way. I'd certainly support that.
Thanks to all those who are responding very positively to this story, and also trying to enlighten others. As a female cyclist is really lovely to see.
Last week I went down to London to the Rapha event with Emily Chappell and Lael Wilcox. Though not woman only, it was very woman dominated (and to be honest, I think all woman at the ride on Friday morning (about 70 of us!) as the male group purposely rode separately to give us space). As a woman with 15 years cycling experience it was just overwhelmingly wonderful - speaking to so many amazing woman, hearing the awesome things they have done. Even with my experience it made me feel empowered to try/do more things. Plus I didn't have to worry about get my legs pulled off - as it was all 'we are very much here together'. Imagine you don't have my experience or opportunities, but you want to try and get into the sport (riding, mechanics etc) - seeing other unrepresented groups and feeling part of a community of people like you, doing the same things, is incredibly powerful. It is the only way to disrupt the status quo and address the imbalance.
How about thinking about another marginalised group, disabled people? Why do we have a separate category of Olympics for them to compete in? By I Scoffs way of thinking we are discriminating by not allowing the able bodied to compete alongside them in the Paralympics.
Increasing participation for any minorities is surely a good thing and if in order to achieve this we have to offer them some additional ‘perks’ then more power to that.
That sounds like a great event @ahsat. I saw some photos on Instagram of a similar ride in the New Forest that looked great.
I find some of the attitudes on here astonishing - its not the 1950s any more
What is so threatening to you poor white men about others getting a hand up? Are you so threatened by this?
I mean, that fact you had to qualify that with “formally”.
It's to avoid nebulous language.
It's a strange phenomenon for sure. I'm an 'unabashed alpha', my girlfriend's words, not mine, so with her view of me, this doesn't cause my radar to blip in a negative way in the slightest. What's to be concerned about?
This alone is going to do very little to the numbers in relation to fellas riding bike Vs everyone else, it is however going to carve out a little more space for some to feel comfortable and enjoy bikes in whatever capacity it brings them joy.
That's basically what were talking about here, shitting on others enjoyment. All because those pesky LGBTQ+ bike nerds out there who need a little hand to enjoy it more might actually do that.
You can dress your 'concern' up anyway you like, but it is ultimately still a turd rolled in glitter, you miserable bastards.
It’s to avoid nebulous language.
Yet you use the word "discrimination" to label measures aimed at increasing inclusion.
Last week I went down to London to the Rapha event with Emily Chappell and Lael Wilcox.
Going slightly off tangent, I watched the recording of that last night, as I'm a big fan of the videos Lael puts out, but was really interested in Emily's comment about the number of openly gay women racing endurance but not so many (any?) openly gay men. Not just an issue/non-issue in cycling though, of course.
The silent majority need to speak up more and slap down those still living in the dark ages, though that may be doing a disservice to the dark ages.
I just hope you are right in thinking that the silent majority are open-minded, I'm not so certain myself, sadly.
Thanks ahsat.
They are worried that in the future, straight white men will suffer the same injustices that LGBTQ+, trans*, BAME and female folk have dealt with forever.
I don't think this is the case, actually. I think there are a lot of people who want to treat everyone on merit, and not see race, gender, orientation etc. Years ago I'd have thought the same thing. But it's not enough - see the picture above with people watching the baseball game. The reasons why women or LGBTQ+ people may feel excluded from things are complex and deep seated, and until we unpick all this, right now, we need positive action which means events like these. You can still become a mechanic if you are straight white male, you're not being blocked.
@that-looks-sketchy:
Discrimination on the basis of gender identity is illegal in the UK. How can this particular discrimination be justified in law? Why can certain identities be discriminated against. I believe that this project is unlawful.
Well it would be, if it wasn't for s158 of the Equality Act, which permits it. It wasn't included in the legislation because the people drafting it thought it would be fun, its there because parliament specifically wanted to encourage this sort of activity.
Just in case you think s158 is some sort of new trend in discrimination law set up to impede cis white men in the 21st century or an accidental misunderstanding, the equivalent provisions existed in the Race Relations Act (first introduced in the 1960s), the Sex discrimination act (first introduced in the 1970s) and the Disability Discrimination act (1990s) so it seems like successive parliaments have considered its a good idea.
What is so threatening to you poor white men about others getting a hand up? Are you so threatened by this?
It's because the implication is that a vast swathe of the population are born villains.
The reasons why women or LGBTQ+ people may feel excluded from things are complex and deep seated, and until we unpick all this, right now, we need positive action which means events like these.
If I was constantly told that one demographic were oppressors I'd want to avoid them too.
You don’t think what is telling them is their own experiences thus far?
I'm a bit confused by your point. Are you implying that they aren't being oppressed, but think they are, because they are told they are being oppressed?