Funded cycle mechanics training for women, trans* and non-binary folk

That sounds like some occasions when I worked in West Africa.

And so how did you feel?

And how would you feel if that was here in the UK?

I’ll tell you why I ask – one of my colleagues works in early years.

We stood in a room of all the early years educators in his local authority – and we were there only two men.

He deals with all I laid out regularly.

I’m interested if you think we should encourage more men into early years? There’s great evidence that there is huge benefit to children to have more men involved in thier early education.

But by your thoughts we should not. No encouragement or support is needed. No change in culture. No actively working to improve/change things. It’s just how it is, yeah?

That sounds like some occasions when I worked in West Africa.

How many social clubs did you join?

Sounds immoral to me.
To give one group help that you don’t offer to another is unfair. End.
Positive discrimination is immoral.

Maybe all these clever people can suggest a solution to the current issue of under representation then.

Or is that not a thing?

It’s funny how these people are so clued up on what discrimination is and how it’s against the law but haven’t got two paragraphs further down the citizens advice webpage.

Positive action
The law against sex discrimination does allow what is known as positive action in favour of one sex.

Positive action is used, often in training or advertising, to make up for a lack of equal opportunity in the past. It is intended to give special encouragement to one sex, without actually discriminating against the other. An example of positive action is giving extra training to female members of staff to help them be able to apply for a particular role if very few or no women have been employed in that role in the past.

So given the objections based on illegal funding from the government seems to be a key sticking point, presumably now you can see it’s not against the law you’re all on board?

Sounds immoral to me.
To give one group help that you don’t offer to another is unfair. End.
Positive discrimination is immoral.

If you really must see it as such a zero sum game then consider the following.

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.

You’d pic the 2nd. Anyone would.

What if option A offered a discount, sufficient discount that actually you were 50/50 which one you did with your weekend?

Now consider that you don’t actually get to choose which one of those options you get to go on. Are they still worth the same to you?

Now consider it’s actually the same weekend, you’re just going to be subject to a very different environment because of your gender.

Sounds immoral to me.
To give one group help that you don’t offer to another is unfair. End.
Positive discrimination is immoral.

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?

Sounds immoral to me.
To give one group help that you don’t offer to another is unfair. End.
Positive discrimination is immoral.

I’m struggling to see what is immoral. Do you aspire to live in the world on the left?

@mattsccm
So by that logic, if you were to see two bikers strewn across the trail, the one with a broken leg, bleeding heavily and suffering from concussion, the other with a scrape to their knee, you would give offer the same help to each person as to not do so would be immoral?
Honestly, have a word with yourself.

Sounds immoral to me.
To give one group help that you don’t offer to another is unfair. End.
Positive discrimination is immoral.

But it is available to other groups. All the time. For many years. Now it’s available to another group.

So what’s your problem with it now then?

When the fire brigade turned up to a house on fire in your street, were you the one insisting every house got the same amount of water put on it?

Jeez, are some people need to pull their y-fronts out of their ass, they’re clearly chaffed and cranky. I for one would be quite happy to not have to deal with another douche-bro when getting my steed serviced so more power to them for giving some peeps from the LGBTQ+ community a leg up.

Also, if this initiative offends your masculine sensibilities so much, I’d go get some therapy if I were you, you’re a bigger pussy than you probably realise.

I for one would be quite happy to not have to deal with another douche-bro when getting my steed serviced so more power to them for giving some peeps from the LGBTQ+ community a leg up.

Also, if this initiative offends your masculine sensibilities so much, I’d go get some therapy if I were you, you’re a bigger pussy than you probably realise.

That made me chuckle, on both counts. Luckily it’s been a few years since I’ve had to deal with any “douche-bros” at an LBS

In terms of solving the ‘problem’, here is an interesting chart:

UK cycling by gender and age

You will note that females are making significantly fewer trips by bike per year from age 0-16 and this trend continues (with some variation) across all ages.

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.

Another interesting set of stats from the Netherlands, although the metric is a little different:

Netherlands cycling by gender

Note that this is much closer to gender parity. May this be because of much better cycling infrastructure and kids thus going cycling with their parents from a young age as a consequence.

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.

@theotherjonv

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.

@dyna-ti

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…