"
British Cycling creates “biggest ever programme to get more women into cycling”
"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
“biggest ever programme to get more women into cycling”
(37 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
"Are women-only cycling events a good idea?"
http://guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/may/24/women-only-cycling-events
Posted 13 years ago # -
I don't get the "lack of knowledge of routes" thing. I'm sorely tempted to pull out the women-can't-read-maps card, but the trouble with that is the only woman cyclist I know could land a spitball on a gnats rump from two miles out with nothing more than a dimestore road map and a sunny day.
But I mean, really, what is there to know about routes? Pull out of the drive, turn left or right, it's pretty much the same thing as getting around in a car, y'know?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"lack of knowledge of routes" must have a recreational context, i.e. they would like to do day trips on segregated infrastructure but don't know where it is.
Surely nobody would argue they don't cycle because they can only remember where the shops or office are when they're in their car?
As for women-only events, if there's no appetite for them they won't get any attendees... but when my lady wife was looking into doing some offroad skills, gender specific ones were a popular choice (possibly just because she feels it's more likely to be a group of similar skills levels?)
Posted 13 years ago # -
My daughter has just done a "Beauty and the Bike" course at school. This was a girls only cycling confidence builder for S1 pupils.
She enjoyed it, learned a lot and has been keen to go out on rides since: even to swimming at 05:30 in the rain the other day!
So, a good thing. And yet....
There have been many initiatives over the years to get women interested in engineering careers but sadly there seem to be fewer female engineers now than there were 20 years ago, at least in the area I work in (electronics). Of course, there are fewer people of any gender working in engineering in the UK now, and that's the problem for cycling too.
The lesson for cycling is, I think, that you need to get people active and enthused. The gender balance will follow with mainstream acceptance.
The figure quoted in the Guardian of 1 in 4 cyclists being female is at odds with my observation commuting in Edinburgh though where it must be much closer to 1 in 2.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"my observation commuting in Edinburgh though where it must be much closer to 1 in 2"
I'm pretty sure that the m/f ratio has changed significantly in recent years, but I'd be surprised (and pleased) if it had nearly reached 50/50.
Posted 13 years ago # -
CEC doesn't have gender split figures - most of their data comes from mechanical counters.
I don't think that the twice a year Spokes counts note gender either.
Perhaps in future??
Posted 13 years ago # -
"More women are using National Cycle Network, says Sustrans"
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/bike-to-work/more-women-are-using-national-cycle-network-says-sustrans
Posted 13 years ago # -
I did timekeeping at the ERC club 10 mile time trial last night.
The winner - by quite some way - was a woman.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"The winner - by quite some way - was a woman."
Mixed cycling??
That's terrible!!
Change the rules at once.
Posted 13 years ago # -
It might just be the case that every woman who goes on one of these rides is in fact a reincarnation of Beryl Burton but if they are discouraged from trying by the thoughts of being dropped by a bunch of men then they are never going to find out. And the fact that most people who already cycle are men would suggest that a mixed ride would be mostly men. Have you seen the entrants list for the Etape Caledonia? Mostly men. No-one tries to suggest that women-only road races or track races or whatever races are sexist so what is the problem with doing it at the other end of the scale?
Posted 13 years ago # -
That's why time trial is good. You can't get dropped. Just caught!
Posted 13 years ago # -
"No-one tries to suggest that women-only road races or track races or whatever races are sexist so what is the problem with doing it at the other end of the scale?"
I struggle with this debate, easy to say things you don't mean unless worded extremely carefully :-/
I think the reason I am mildly uncomfortable about "Women only" entry level cycling events is that they seem to reinforce the idea "you'll be rubbish and slow if you ride with blokes so best not to". when actually imho inexperienced novice female cyclists are not significantly better/worse cyclists than the other gender(s!)
Also it's easy to fall into the trap of "we don't need to support novice male cyclists to start out as lots of men cycle anyway", and ignore them completely regardless of individual need.
I'd be a lot happier with novice or beginner cycle events rather than creating sub groups which are in some ways exclusive as opposed to inclusive.
At the highest levels of competition there appears to be a difference in level of performance and that, along with historical precedent, is the reason for segregated competition. Whether that will change, I don't know. Not my speciality I'm afraid.
All in all though, the more cyclists the merrier, whatever their gender/age/background/bike.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I'd be a lot happier with novice or beginner cycle events rather than creating sub groups which are in some ways exclusive as opposed to inclusive."
Yeah I think that's my view - though I have no idea what ERC etc do in practice - or by enforced rules.
At schools things can be different. I'm sure 'girls only' groups work - but so should 'groups for inexperienced bicycle users' too.
In some places the 'out group' is not girls but children from some ethnic minorities.
It's hard to know what the 'answer' is for engineering (and some other professions). Medicine used to be pretty male dominated; no longer - at least at undergraduate level.
When I've worked in schools, girls sometimes need a bit of persuading to try using tools on their bikes. But there are plenty of boys who don't even seem to know how to use a screwdriver either.
The crucial thing is to make sure that primary age children can feel confident riding. Most will largely/completely stop at some time in secondary - walking is more social than cycling, unless ALL your school friends ride.
After school the car/bike/PT options are partly determined by personal economics. But people who where confident cyclists as children are more likely to do it again.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I think the reason I am mildly uncomfortable about "Women only" entry level cycling events is that they seem to reinforce the idea "you'll be rubbish and slow if you ride with blokes so best not to". when actually imho inexperienced novice female cyclists are not significantly better/worse cyclists than the other gender(s!)"
Whether beginner women are or are not slower than men, I feel pretty confident that their perception is that they will be slower. And that puts them off.
I have lost count of how many sports I have tried once and then never gone back to because I have immediately been put up against men who are bigger/fitter/stronger than me. Don't underestimate how offputting it is.
Interestingly, the justification for creepy old men lurking around taking photographs of young girls on bike was "so long as it works". Does this not apply to women only bike rides?
I agree that more need to be done to get everyone cycling, male or female. At the moment, women are lagging behind in the cycling stakes, hence the drive to increase the ratio.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I have lost count of how many sports I have tried once and then never gone back to because I have immediately been put up against men who are bigger/fitter/stronger than me. Don't underestimate how offputting it is."
I'm sure it is. And I'm sure there have been times/sports (and no doubt still are) where such attitudes are concentrated along gender/hierarchy lines.
As someone who was never good at 'sport' I know that being shown up/put down is not just a male/female thing.
Some people/clubs/institutions are better at encouraging the next generation than others.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Interestingly, the justification for creepy old men lurking around taking photographs of young girls on bike was "so long as it works". Does this not apply to women only bike rides?
A solid point. Perhaps the principle difference is that a street photographer with website is not publically funded, very different to taxpayers' money being spent on these events.
Consider that the alternative to Cycle Chic is simply not to have Cycle Chic, whereas the alternative to womens' only cycle events might be novices' cycling events, childrens' cycling events, or even saving a few thousand lives in the third world with a timely medical intervention (!). As a result, I think it's fair to be more concerned about the efficacy.
Or to put it another way - I'd find Copenhagen Cycle Chic dubious too, if it was government funded.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"As a result, I think it's fair to be more concerned about the efficacy."
Yep, that sounds fair to me. It would be interesting to find out if they reach their target of 20 000 more women cycling.
But don't forget that there are also plenty of cycling events for novices, children etc that are not women only. And that another reason (apart from gender disparity in numbers) to get more women cycling is that women are still hugely more likely to be looking after the children and therefore passing on their transport habits to them. Making a special effort to encourage women to cycle may well have a greater overall effect on cycling levels in general. This is the theory.
Posted 13 years ago # -
A skazillion years ago, when I lived in Boston, the Charles River Wheelmen would hold weekly rides of 30,45, and 75 miles. The routes were well-marked with spray paint. The rides weren't races (unless you and your buddies wanted to do the cha-cha). Start time was nominally 8 a.m, but nobody was blowing a start whistle.
Mostly you would get a few friends, start rolling, meet a few on the way.
It was well populated with both genders (though men still outnumbered women), in part because it was not a single-gender event and the competition factor was low. It was a social ride, and people like to be sociable in mixed groups.
I think it would be events like that which would bring out more women cyclists, rather than segregated events. Or, at least that was the case during the paleolithic era in Boston.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I have lost count of how many sports I have tried once and then never gone back to because I have immediately been put up against men who are bigger/fitter/stronger than me. Don't underestimate how offputting it is."
The same also applies to other men...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Kaputnik, there is a reason why women do not compete against men in the majority of sports. Victoria Pendleton and Rebecca Romero would beat any of you guys but they do not compete against men, they compete against other women.
Is this some sort of weird male guilt thing? Are you just all utterly refusing to consider the fact that women are generally physically weaker than men and can therefore be intimidated by the thought of having to match them? Whether individual women are faster than most men is not the point, unless you are one of those women the odds are stacked against you being as fast/strong as the men. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Posted 13 years ago # -
@min
"Are you just all utterly refusing to consider the fact that women are generally physically weaker than men and can therefore be intimidated by the thought of having to match them?"
you previously said -
"Whether beginner women are or are not slower than men, I feel pretty confident that their perception is that they will be slower. And that puts them off."
and -
"Victoria Pendleton and Rebecca Romero would beat any of you guys but they do not compete against men, they compete against other women."
SO, maybe I have lost the point of this 'argument'.
Some people are better than other. Experienced/practiced people are likely to be better than beginners.
Is this about (some) women feeling doubly disadvantaged for being beginners and women or potential beginners (any gender) being put off for fear of being patronised (not gender specific), or?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Sorry, what I was meaning is that at "my" level of fitness / performance, I'm equally intimidated and put off by people who are better than me. They are both male and female. You don't need to be female to be put off / intimidated / made to feel inferior by your physical betters.
I wasn't denying that physiologically and athletically that males will - by dint of genetics and evolution - nearly always come out ahead of females at top levels of sport.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I truly do not understand the confusion here and am bowing out of this debate.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm equally intimidated and put off by people who are better than me
hmmm...not sure about this K'nik. Obviously, that is how you feel. But (to generalize grossly) boys are taught to 'strut' and compete and be proud of being tough and strong and rough. Girls are encouraged to be caring, artistic, etc. Even at a very young age (see media reports on toronto couple who are trying not to acknowledge baby's gender), we interact differently with boys than girls and give them different cues as to how they should react.
Hence, many (but not all) women are particularly vulnerable to being made to feel inferior in these sorts of situations. and that is without all the stuff about not wanting boys to see them all sweaty.
I fear I have brought this conversation down to a level of gender stereotypes that none of us adhere to, but am just trying to explain why some women might find an all-female environment more conducive to trying out a new sport. remember also that not all male cyclists are as sweet and supportive as you guys on here!
Posted 13 years ago # -
"boys are taught to 'strut' and compete and be proud of being tough and strong and rough. Girls are encouraged to be caring, artistic, etc."
Hmm one is generalising today!
I think K and I - both male but, more or less, from different generations - are not so much 'ignoring the realities' but suggesting that there are problems with assuming the worst, and further assuming it's mostly gender related.
Perhaps we spend too much time on here, mixing with nice people...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I didn't say boys were x and girls are y; I said they are socialised to be those things. luckily many of our kids get more creative parenting than that and have strong self-identities as well. Otherwise life would be remarkably boring.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm aware of the generalisations, including actual living exhibits which embody them, but (even when I was small) they were well on their way to being presented (at least, to me) as the historical case rather than employed as the current gender-rôle-assignment paradigm. Perhaps people today are wary of bringing them up where it's not necessary in order to further distance them from the accepted norm or to avoid any possibility of being misinterpreted as cleaving to backwards views. Unfortunately, I have noticed other people of my own age being somewhat stone-aged in their gender-related mindset. Some of these people have kids, so even if the national curriculum is entirely gender-based-assumption free by the time they get to school they'll still have been exposed to their parents' assumptions.
At least we don't have anything like the males-thrice-the-mass-of-females sexual dimorphism problem that the orang-utan has.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Stereotypes and prejudices are all around unfortunately,
eg I happen to have relatively small feet, so to get "one size fits all" socks I need the pack marked as "womens" if I want them to fit.
Queue comments, "oh aren't they womens socks?" NO they're b**** socks!! They have no gender!
It matters not and it's not even on the radar compared to the things women still have to deal with on a daily basis, but it's a constant stream of such stupidity that has shown me how prevalent ingrained prejudice/sexism and similar is. Even my being a member of Girl Guiding UK as a unit helper is a cause for ridicule from some neanderthal idiots (of both genders) because I am of the "wrong" gender and they (mistakenly) assume that all the girls do are "girly" activities.Look at a shop with toys, the "girls" aisle will be obvious from 100m away because of the prevalence of sugar pink, and the "boys" aisles are full of weapons and construction toys I sometimes wonder if we're actually in the 21st century at all :-(
Posted 13 years ago # -
We don't have any girls, we have 4 boys. If you don't get them weapons they just make them out of Lego or whatever else is around.
I don't think there is anything pink in the house. I was going to liberate a pink bike which a friend was sending to the dump but he assured me the pink was all pervasive, not just the frame. I liberated the blue bike.
A friend from school became a nurse. Anytime he mentioned his career plan we would ask, "Are you going to be a male nurse?". It made us chuckle every time.
At the moment 3 of the boys have the Scalextric set up in the living room.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
