# Why don't women cycle?



## ManchesterRider (11 Jun 2018)

Did you know that 75% of cyclists are male? 

Cycling provides an opportunity to substitute the car for a healthier option. It doesn't require fuel, it contributes to an active healthy lifestyle, and saves reduces the huge air pollution problem in the UK.

I am trying to investigate why the gender imbalance exists in cycling in the UK, as in countries such as Germany and The Netherlands women cycle as much as men; furthermore, cycling is a popular mode of transport in these countries.

So what do you think are the main reasons behind this? Some contributing factors that have emerged in my research are;


Harrasment (verbal abuse, funny looks, sexual harrasment)
Lack of confidence
Fear of traffic
Not wanting to break a sweat / potentially mess your hair etc
Distance
Weather
Lack of cycle lanes
Hills
Not knowing enough about bicycle maintence
Bikes are too expensive, not sure where to get a 2nd hand one
Time constraints


Would love to hear your views, please feel free to reply, the more detail the better!

Hopefully my research can contribute to achieving a gender parity in UK cycling!

Best wishes,

George
University of Manchester


----------



## Sharky (11 Jun 2018)

My mum used to cycle until she had me and then my brother then my two sisters. She took on the role of looking after us. Where as my dad continued cycling to work until his retirement and up to about two weeks before he passed away. Although this was a few years ago, it is probably still a common scenario.


----------



## Drago (11 Jun 2018)

Welcome to the forum, George University.

To answer the question, I don't know. In Mrs D's case it's health, which is nothing to do with gender.

Just out of interest, from what source did you obtain the 75% figure for male riders? That's a strangely neat number. If one is asking people to give credible answers to a question, the question should be framed against credible data.


----------



## Slick (11 Jun 2018)




----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Jun 2018)

ManchesterRider said:


> So what do you think are the main reasons behind this?



My wife packed it in as a direct result of a close pass by a bus driver as she entered a pinch-point. Bullies in 20-tonne vehicles scared the shoot out of her so she gave up after the last episode left her trembling and in tears.

My daughter still rides occasionally but chooses routes (including pavements) that let her avoid the worst areas.


----------



## User10119 (11 Jun 2018)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/what’s-stopping-women-cycling.229569/


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (11 Jun 2018)

There's loads of women riders use the Trans Pennine Trail between Penistone and Dunford Bridge and the surrounding roads. I see plenty on my rides in the area. Maybe it's regional.

On the other hand my mother gave it up over 50 years ago on account of riding into the side of a van that pulled out on her on Corporation Street in Rotherham.


----------



## User10119 (11 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5263967, member: 10119"]You can download by clicking this link https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/def...18/05/1805_yougov_results_for_cycling_uk.xlsx
It splits the data by gender, age, region, social grade, marital status(entertainingly typoed as martial), no of children in household, age of children etc. [...]
Interesting that 14% of respondents (including nearly 1 in 5 women) replied that they can't ride a bike. Training - cheap, easily accessible etc - seems like a good place to start.[/QUOTE]
Which is from https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/h...commuter-cycling-to-reap-the-benefits.234820/ - that was a thread that didn't particularly engage with the question of gender.


----------



## Drago (11 Jun 2018)

That's interesting Mr Trousers, but George University is claiming that 75% (exactly?) Of cyclists are male. He makes no mention of mileage or journey stats betwixt the genders.


----------



## Julia9054 (11 Jun 2018)

Hi George
You may find this article interesting
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/women-cycling
It is linked on the stats link that @Dogtrousers provided but I thought I would pick it out. Looking at the breakdown by gender on @User10119 's link, i was struck by (apart from the can't ride a bike thing) how similar the percentages are for men and women when asked what puts them off.
The cycling uk article looks at how aspects of women's lives may be different to men's lives and how that may affect their choices.
I also think it's worth considering the difference between cycling for transport, cycling as a family leisure activity and cycling as a hobby. I wonder what the gender breakdown is for each of these?


----------



## mjr (11 Jun 2018)

ManchesterRider said:


> So what do you think are the main reasons behind this? Some contributing factors that have emerged in my research are;


I think those factors aren't so much contributing as consequential.


----------



## Drago (11 Jun 2018)

Surely most of the factors cited by George University also apply to blokes who don't cycle?


----------



## User10119 (11 Jun 2018)

Not what again? Another thread about gender and cycling or another stoodent hoping that we'll write their dissertation for 'em?

Both of those, of course, are reasons that I signposted the couple of recent, relevant to the question, discussions that I was aware of. If anyone has anything they feel is useful or new or whatever they can add their thoughts if they want.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Jun 2018)

Can I ask that men for once step back and let the actual women here answer? It's okay just to listen sometimes.


----------



## Drago (11 Jun 2018)

That's sexist. Men can have valid insights into this matter.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (11 Jun 2018)

Drago said:


> That's sexist. Men can have valid insights into this matter.


Yes, they can, isn't it sort of info acquired second hand, though?
Let the women speak, but I'm afraid the women of this forum are the wrong ones to ask, because we already cycle.
@ManchesterRider to really get the big picture you should do a proper survey with statistically linked results.
Like the research linked above by @User10119.
I know of many reasons of why women don't commute by bike, because this is what I sometimes ask my work colleagues.
Then again, I know of many reasons why some women ride everywhere!
To me, it would be interesting to find out how many women ride for sport, how many for leisure, how many for transport, and the percentage from the whole (male and female) of these different kind of women riders.
It would be interesting because, if we want to increase transport by bike, we need convincing not the weekend rider, but the Mum that does the school run.


----------



## User10119 (11 Jun 2018)

Drago said:


> That's sexist.


Y'know, I don't think it is. It's a _very _polite request to let women speak for themselves. In the swamp of actual sexism this place sometimes is, have we really got to the point that a woman asking that women's opinions and insights about issues affecting women be listened to is considered discriminatory?

For what it's worth I think that @Pat "5mph" has a point, in that it is a bit daft to ask people who cycle why people don't cycle. Mind, I ride my bike so little these days I probably count as a non-cyclist. But some of the reasons behind that are complex, and not ones that I'd feel at all comfortable to share with the crocodiles.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Jun 2018)

Drago said:


> That's sexist. Men can have valid insights into this matter.


They might.

But considering the first post, from a man was about his mother who gave up cycling before he was born *sixty-eight years ago*! So that is years before the end of rationing, a decade before hormonal contraceptives were available, 17 years before abortion was even partly legalised, nearly 30 years before the first female PM, 67 years before the first female front line graduate from Sandhurst, probably 45 before @ManchesterRider was born etc etc etc.

I do not see much similarity in the lives of women born between the wars and those born in the 21st century. If you think they are the same you have no concept of what it is like to be a woman. 

But yeah, sure some men might have some valid insights


----------



## slowmotion (11 Jun 2018)

Is the general idea that women who don't cycle can only have their opinions relayed by women who do cycle, and that those opinions relayed to men who cycle are not allowed to be reported by men on this forum?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (11 Jun 2018)

Well, I really think we should have 3 categories of "why".
Sport: I want to ride further and faster, but I'll go to Asda in the car, how else?
Leisure and fitness: I want to ride the canal paths at 5mph with my friends, go for coffee and cake.
Utilitarian: I want to ride everywhere, don't have/want a car, give me the safest, fastest route to my destination.
Lots to talk about, but now I need to get some sleep, early shift tomorrow.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (11 Jun 2018)

slowmotion said:


> If the general idea that women who don't cycle can only have their opinions relayed by women who do cycle, and that those opinions relayed to men who cycle are not allowed to be reported by men on this forum?


No, it's not.
*Mod Note*: Stop Stirring!


----------



## slowmotion (11 Jun 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> No, it's not.
> *Mod Note*: Stop Stirring!


I'm not stirring, just seeking clarity.


----------



## User10119 (11 Jun 2018)

Well, one bit of 'clarity'; nobody has said that anyone is or isn't 'allowed' to post. One person has politely asked that women's voices be listened to. But if people would rather be affronted at that mere suggestion, that frankly outrageous denial of their freedom of speech, and have yet another iteration of the PC-Gawn-Mad-the-Feminazis-are-after-us-boys nonsense then I give up.

Well done, you've succesfully silenced one of us again. For anyone remotely interested in why I think fewer women cycle than men I posted a link to the previous 34 page discussion of it, and I think this should be a link to the posts I made in that thread.
View attachment 413891


----------



## slowmotion (11 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5274306, member: 10119"]Well, one bit of 'clarity'; nobody has said that anyone is or isn't 'allowed' to post. One person has politely asked that women's voices be listened to. But if people would rather be affronted at that mere suggestion, that frankly outrageous denial of their freedom of speech, and have yet another iteration of a PC-Gawn-Mad-the-Feminazis-are-after-us-boys nonsense then I give up.

Well done, you've succesfully silenced one of us again. For anyone remotely interested in why I think fewer women cycle than men I posted a link to the previous 34 page discussion of it, and I think this should be a link to the posts I made in that thread.
View attachment 413891
[/QUOTE]
Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? Some males offered their opinions on why women may not cycle. Some people seemed to take exception. Anyway, for what it isn't worth, my wife thinks it's dangerous and my daughter doesn't want to end up at work sweaty. Besides, her bike parking facilities are crap, and the bus is easier.

Did you hear that George, amongst all the noise?


----------



## theclaud (11 Jun 2018)

slowmotion said:


> I'm not stirring, just seeking clarity.


Give over!


----------



## slowmotion (12 Jun 2018)

theclaud said:


> Give over!


Oh, all right...

….


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Jun 2018)

So we have a few wives/girlfriends etc asked who think it is too dangerous 
From the page of statistics linked earlier, there are 10 reasons listed which could be summed up as meaning "too dangerous". The average percentage (I realise this is not a particularly good way to analyse as people have ticked more than one) for men listing these reasons is 43.4 compared to women at 49.2. This could be summed up as slightly more women that don't cycle think it is too dangerous than men. Do people think that a 5.8% difference is significantly large enough to conclude that this reason must account for the difference in the numbers of men and women who cycle? I am struck by how similar they are.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Jun 2018)

There's a piece on the BBC about this at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44446958 which contains a link to an older feature (from Jan 2018) : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-41737483 which gives the following insight:

_About 50% fewer women than men cycle twice a week or more, according to walking and cycling charity Sustrans, and when it comes to cycling on the roads, the number drops again.

Commonly cited reasons for shunning the benefits of getting into the saddle include sexual harassment, fears about appearance and concerns about safety. So what can be done to get more women on their bikes and out on the road?

Tackling sexist attitudes among male road users would be a first step, says Leigh Campbell, who leads all-women cycling rides in Nottingham.

"Sometimes, when I've been out cycling on my own, I've had male drivers shout at me as they're overtaking," said the 45-year-old British Cycling Breeze Champion.

"I've been told to 'read the Highway Code' and 'get off the road'. I've also been sworn at.

"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.

"All I want to do is ride my bike and I don't think I should have to put up with abuse from other - mainly male - road users, just because I'm a woman."

_​


----------



## jefmcg (12 Jun 2018)

slowmotion said:


> Is the general idea that women who don't cycle can only have their opinions relayed by women who do cycle, and that those opinions relayed to men who cycle are not allowed to be reported by men on this forum?


There are two sorts of non cycling women: those who have never cycled and those who have given it up. I didn't start cycling until I was in my late twenties. Right now as you seem to be aware I am having qualms about continuing to cycle, so yes I think I might be able to relate to both types.

We could also divide non-cycling women another way, those that don't want to cycle, and those that want to cycle yet don't. Probably no one here can relate to the former, but everyone (male and female) have felt the pressure to stop cycling, and even though we have resisted it, we understand why someone might have given into it.

No one wants to be lying on the tarmac, nearly under the wheels of a Prius in Kensington after midnight. But I think it has a extra frisson of danger that I am a woman, and it is men in the car that hit me standing over me trying to bully me into not calling the police, men who run over in response to my screams, it's a police*man *who stumbles on the scene. Every person involved could have physically restrained me, hurt me or worse. Sure, the policeman and the bystanders would have almost certainly stood up for me, but I don't want to rely on the kindness of strangers. And the next time, if there are no bystanders and passing police? I don't want to be in that situation again and the best way to avoid it involves 4 wheels, locking doors and an engine.

I could have shared this, but instead I ended up responding to butt hurt men who were offended at the principle that maybe there are a few times and places when they should listen rather than talk.

But now I have seen your vital hearsay anecdata, I understand the urgency of your need to have your say. Men have been silenced for too long! </sarcasm>


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> Can I ask that men for once step back and let the actual women here answer? It's okay just to listen sometimes.


How women that cycle step back and let the women who don't cycle answer the question?

[edit] TMN to almost everyone


----------



## jefmcg (12 Jun 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> How women that cycle step back and let the women who don't cycle answer the question?
> 
> [edit] TMN to almost everyone


As I just said, I was a woman that had never cycled and I am a woman thinking of giving it up. So I can speak.

And my plea was for men to listen. Which you clearly aren't bothering to do, as you didn't even "listen" to my post that is 10 minutes older than yours. 

As always, the voices of women are being swamped by men's, and politely asking them to not do it makes them behave like spoiled infants.


----------



## slow scot (12 Jun 2018)

ManchesterRider said:


> Did you know that 75% of cyclists are male?
> 
> Cycling provides an opportunity to substitute the car for a healthier option. It doesn't require fuel, it contributes to an active healthy lifestyle, and saves reduces the huge air pollution problem in the UK.
> 
> ...


I think we need more information on George and what Department of the University he is in; why he is doing this research and for what specific reason etc. Then, I at least, would be happier to answer his questions, and those of other "researchers". Just my opinion!


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jun 2018)

Maybe in many cases it's just a simple thing like "I've got a car". That's one purchase that stops a lot of people from cycling.


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Jun 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> Maybe in many cases it's just a simple thing like "I've got a car". That's one purchase that stops a lot of people from cycling.


Not a female specific issue though. The question we are trying to answer is what makes women cycle in fewer numbers than men.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> Not a female specific issue though. The question we are trying to answer is what makes women cycle in fewer numbers than men.


And twice as many cars on the road are owned by men than women, so if that was a factor, it would affect men more than women.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> Not a female specific issue though. The question we are trying to answer is what makes women cycle in fewer numbers than men.


As I understand it, the figures are more closely matched in places like Holland, Denmark and Germany where utilitarian cycling is a norm. Why are British women less likely to cycle than Dutch, Danish or German women?


----------



## jefmcg (12 Jun 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> As I understand it, the figures are more closely matched in places like Holland, Denmark and Germany where utilitarian cycling is a norm. Why are British women less likely to cycle than Dutch, Danish or German women?


I suspect the correlation is the other way around: people who cycle a lot tend not to have a car. I.E cycling leads to not buying a car rather than buying a car leads to not cycling. 

Do you have a link to those figures? Do they apply to women only or both genders**? Utilitarian cycling isn't as common here, except commuting, so that would be a big difference between UK and mainland Europe.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jun 2018)

In Denmark it's 47% women and 53% men, according to this.

edit... Germany's M/F cycling split is supposedly around 55% female and Holland's closer to 50/50, but that was just a chart with no mention of its source.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Jun 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> In Denmark it's 47% women and 53% men, according to this.
> 
> edit... Germany's M/F cycling split is supposedly around 55% female and Holland's closer to 50/50, but that was just a chart with no mention of its source.


I didn't understand what you were saying. I thought you meant there was a correlation between car ownership and cycling in women in Denmark et al.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> And twice as many cars on the road are owned by men than women, so if that was a factor, it would affect men more than women.


I didn't know that! You learn something new every day, true.
Anyway, in a very unscientific way, I have been asking female work colleagues: today I got, from 2 twenty something fit lassies the answer "oh, I'm too lazy to cycle, I just drive my car".
Previous answers have been "can't ride a bike, scared of traffic, too far to cycle".
The "don't want to arrive at work sweaty" was given to me by three males 

@glasgowcyclist I have experienced the harassment of the woman you quote, but I see men getting it too. WVMan does not discriminate.
Also, I have been shouted/beeped off the road by women drivers a few times.

I was talking about the abuse thing with a mixed group of riders, us women agreed that if we get aggro on a road used often, we change route, while the guys would insist on using that route/pinch point/roundabout to make their point.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> I believe that fewer women cycle due not having the luxury of spare time, its something many women lose out on due to the expectations put on them by society, kids, cooking, cleaning, working etc. etc. etc. yet its a luxury that a lot of men believe is their god given right backed by societal dogma.
> so maybe when men stop behaving and believing in a hierarchical society which allows dominance over women, maybe women can then afford the luxury of spare time and do many things including cycling.


Uhmm ...
What kind of cycling though?
Fair enough competitive or amateur club cycling, but why do most of my (much) younger than me, single, childless, colleagues that live nearer work than me, prefer to drive?
They would save a lot of money by cycling, young people's insurance being what it is.
Over maybe 250 female employees, only half a dozen cycle to work.


----------



## Blue Hills (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> I believe that fewer women cycle due not having the luxury of spare time, its something many women lose out on due to the expectations put on them by society, kids, cooking, cleaning, working etc. etc. etc. yet its a luxury that a lot of men believe is their god given right backed by societal dogma.
> so maybe when men stop behaving and believing in a hierarchical society which allows dominance over women, maybe women can then afford the luxury of spare time and do many things including cycling.


isn't part of the wonder of cycling that it can be integrated into life/daily activities?
Cycling isn't necessarily whizzing off for an entire day's glory sportif or whatever the things are called.
I write this as someone who has no interest in such things.


----------



## classic33 (12 Jun 2018)

Asked three relatives why they don't cycle.
One prefers walking, seldom uses public transport & doesn't drive. She's never cycled.

Her daughter, says its down to how cycling is perceived(Her wording). Didn't ask further.
She used to cycle, but no longer does so.

Third one, would only choose to cycle on fine days, short trips. She does drive, often took the bike rather than the car.
She's stopped cycling due to verbal abuse. She also cycled rural & country roads.


----------



## classic33 (12 Jun 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Uhmm ...
> What kind of cycling though?
> Fair enough competitive or amateur club cycling, but why do most of my (much) younger than me, single, childless, colleagues that live nearer work than me, prefer to drive?
> They would save a lot of money by cycling, young people's insurance being what it is.
> Over maybe 250 female employees, only half a dozen cycle to work.


That last part could also apply to males.
In a building where 2,000 people worked, there were fewer than four dozen bikes on site.


----------



## Blue Hills (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> its hard to integrated something into your life, when life itself leaves you very little time, so yes it would be great for some to cycle to the shop or to a friends or wherever and make cycling part of their life but that for many would mean leaving the kids alone, or doing all the other things expected by society that women should do before even considering doing something for themselves.


mm

I think you have a very particular view of contemporary society.

And relationships.

For whatever reason.

You seem to portay a picture of women chained to a stove with crying children tugging at their long skirts.

These women of yours - do they ever get out of the house?


----------



## Slick (12 Jun 2018)

Blue Hills said:


> mm
> 
> I think you have a very particular view of contemporary society.
> 
> ...


I thought we'd time warped back to the 50's.


----------



## theclaud (12 Jun 2018)

Blue Hills said:


> mm
> 
> I think you have a very particular view of contemporary society.
> 
> ...


The de facto situation is that women still do the vast majority of childcare and domestic labour, earn less, and spend less of their money on themselves.


----------



## Blue Hills (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> men getting butt hurt


Sorry - I have no idea what that means. What you mean

Care to explain?

without smileys/laughies.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Jun 2018)

Blue Hills said:


> Sorry - I have no idea what that means. What you mean
> 
> Care to explain?
> 
> without smileys/laughies.


Glad it's not only me, I thought I had a senile moment there.


----------



## Blue Hills (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> No, we have this wonderful thing called google and it can be your friend, give it a go.


have no intention of googling for what may or may not have been meant.

I asked a civil question.

Deserves a civil answer.

Your less than civil answer tells me all I need to know.


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Jun 2018)

I cycled everywhere before children. Not for leisure but for transport and because i learned to drive late. After children, i walked and took the bus. The sort of equipment needed to transport kids by bike wasn't readily available and i would not have felt safe with child seat or trailer. I still had to work so wanted to spend weekend time with my kids rather than go off cycling. (Tbf, my husband didn't go off either as he felt the same) I started cycling again for fun and then for transport once they were old enough to leave for a few hours.
It's not about living in some version of the 1950s - i guess if i had had the luxury of being a stay at home mum, a few hours off on a sunday morning might have been fun.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> No, we have this wonderful thing called google and it can be your friend, give it a go.


Women don't have the time to cycle because they can't leave their childish men home alone 
Only kidding, but, really, it is a CC courtesy to answer another member's question.
Now it's two members asking!


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Jun 2018)

Blue Hills said:


> These women of yours - do they ever get out of the house?


Of course they do but generally with the children in tow. I certainly don't remember getting out of the house much without them and whilst a little family trip on bikes/ trailer/tag along might have been fun, trying to shop and do the school run is not conducive to cycling (kudos to those who manage it)


----------



## slowmotion (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> its hard to integrated something into your life, when life itself leaves you very little time, so yes it would be great for some to cycle to the shop or to a friends or wherever and make cycling part of their life but that for many would mean leaving the kids alone, or doing all the other things expected by society that women should do before even considering doing something for themselves.


The Dutch manage.


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Jun 2018)

slowmotion said:


> The Dutch manage.


They have the infrastructure to do all the things women have to do - with the kids in tow - by bike.


----------



## slowmotion (12 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> They have the infrastructure to do all the things women have to do - with the kids in tow - by bike.


Yes, absolutely. Their willingness to cycle might not be anything to do with a wicked patriarchal society oppressing them.


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5275345, member: 9609"]why does anyone care? I mean why does it matter if one gender cycles more than another. These threads always fascinate me as its stuff that I thought nobody would ever consider or really care about but obviously some of you are very passionate about it, why does it matter.
Its a bit like very few men ride about on horses and getting all concerned about that, it makes no sense. different people like to do different things.[/QUOTE]
Sigh.
We've been through this many times before. As a society, it is better for health, traffic congestion and the environment if more people cycle. If we are going to get more people cycling, it is worth looking at why certain groups of people don't cycle. It is not the same as horse riding, swimming, Zumba classes etc


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Jun 2018)

User said:


> You seem to have overlooked @theclaud’s post, which followed the post from @User and blue hill’s response to it, and was fairly clear.
> 
> I’m really not sure why people are struggling to understand what was being said.


@theclaud I did understand perfectly, the following post I must admit I did not get.
Never mind, was probably not important.
@Julia9054 when you have kids to tow around, and shopping, I agree a car is more convenient than a bike, specially because we don't have enough safe infrastructure for family riding.
There is a family in my area all on bikes.
The Mum does the school run on my same commute stretch on an electric assist cargo bike, while the Dad commutes to his work on his own bike, well, naturally 
They have two boys, for the last couple of years the oldest rides his own bike along the cargo bike.
I must ask them what they did when we had the ice and snow.
There is a financial aspect too: that cargo bike costs probably as much as a small car.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5274718, member: 43827"]I despair of this forum sometimes.

A student asks for help and most of the thread consists of either thinly veiled criticism of his process, criticism of the right/ability of other members to comment or the usual resorting to commentary on sexist attitudes.

Admittedly some have had the grace to supply helpful information, but I reckon George hasn't come back because he is busy changing his research to something simple like the meaning of life or, more sensibly, has gone to the Student Union for a couple of beers.[/QUOTE]
By all appearances, George has not been here since the moment he posted his question. Yeah, maybe he came back without logging in, and left in horror because we hadn't written his thesis for him. My theory is he hasn't been back yet, but will be in a day or two to see if we have completed his thesis yet. I don't hold out much hope for another post from him, despite my and others efforts to answer his question.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5275369, member: 9609"]they're all healthy things to do too, are there people in those groups who worry about men not taking part.. (I'm guess from your inclusion not many men bother swimming or zumbering? )[/QUOTE]
Healthy for humans, but not for the environment if everybody drives to them.


----------



## Lozz360 (12 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I suspect the correlation is the other way around: people who cycle a lot tend not to have a car. I.E cycling leads to not buying a car rather than buying a car leads to not cycling.


A government survey in 2008 and 2009 found that 83% of cyclists were resident in a household with access to a car or van.


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5275369, member: 9609"]they're all healthy things to do too, are there people in those groups who worry about men not taking part.. (I'm guess from your inclusion not many men bother swimming or zumbering? )[/QUOTE]
There may be individuals within organisations that run these hobbies and pastimes that look into being more inclusive, I don't know. I mentioned swimming and Zumba because they were two things that were brought up last time this issue was discussed. You can understand that cycling is different and more than just a hobby or sport, can't you? Encouraging participation is supposedly part of a transport policy. 
The Dutch are often mentioned as being a nation that has, generally, got it right. Here, men and women cycle in more or less equal numbers. They are generally not cycling as a hobby.


----------



## slowmotion (13 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> The Dutch are often mentioned as being a nation that has, generally, got it right. Here, men and women cycle in more or less equal numbers. They are generally not cycling as a hobby.



I think that the Dutch don't actually view themselves as "cyclists" because bicycles are just part of their everyday lives as routine transport. "Cyclists" are those who dress up in team kit and wear helmets.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5275541, member: 43827"]A very cynical response to a student asking for ideas. I did not get the impression he was asking for anyone to do all the work for him, let alone "write his thesis for him". Surely a popular cycling forum should be a good source of information.

I take the view he was amazed by the tone of many, not all, the responses, and wisely moved on, or is just waiting for more information. Not everyone feels compelled to respond to every other reply on an internet forum.[/QUOTE]


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (13 Jun 2018)

While we're on the subject, Helen Pidd published an article this morning: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jun 2018)

Lozz360 said:


> A government survey in 2008 and 2009 found that 83% of cyclists were resident in a household with access to a car or van.


?


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jun 2018)

Blue Hills said:


> Sorry - I have no idea what that means. What you mean
> 
> Care to explain?
> 
> without smileys/laughies.





Pat "5mph" said:


> Glad it's not only me, I thought I had a senile moment there.





Blue Hills said:


> have no intention of googling for what may or may not have been meant.
> 
> I asked a civil question.
> 
> ...





Pat "5mph" said:


> Women don't have the time to cycle because they can't leave their childish men home alone
> Only kidding, but, really, it is a CC courtesy to answer another member's question.
> Now it's two members asking!



Well, that is all clearly much easier than going all the way to google to find out. You'd have to find your keys wallet, put on your hiking boots and set out on the great journey.

So I have done it for you:

_noun
noun: butt-hurt
1.
an excessive or unjustifiable feeling of personal offence or resentment._

Eg
"That's sexist. Men can have valid insights into this matter."


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Yes, they can, isn't it sort of info acquired second hand, though?


No more than anyone else when it's about the statistical flaws in the approach rather than experiences.



Pat "5mph" said:


> Let the women speak, but I'm afraid the women of this forum are the wrong ones to ask, because we already cycle.


For example, what required anyone to be a woman to make that point?



jefmcg said:


> And twice as many cars on the road are owned by men than women, so if that was a factor, it would affect men more than women.


Beware that statistic! I'm probably regarded as the owner of our household's car because for various reasons, I shook hands on our first car and then registered and insured it and consequently all the replacements and it's rather expensive and still slightly impractical to change that even all these years later, but I probably don't drive it most often - but it's difficult to tell because it spends most of its time idle! (and it's currently in bits, costing me hours and hundreds of pounds in ways that our bikes rarely do, but that's another story...)



User said:


> its hard to integrated something into your life, when life itself leaves you very little time [...]


But cycling's faster than driving in anything bigger than a small town and even more so once you have to factor in the walk from the further-away car park to where you could have parked a bike (someone came up with a formula for that but I can't find it now). That's a big part of the reason why motorists always seem in more of a rush to get everywhere than cyclists!

[QUOTE 5275767, member: 43827"]What on earth possessed him to think he might get good evidence from a cycling forum on research into cycling activities?[/QUOTE]
He/she could - but by reading existing threads like @User10119 linked and maybe asking follow-up questions, rather than posting something here that made plenty go "oh no, not again" like the proverbial bowl of petunias.


----------



## Lozz360 (13 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> ?


OK that came out a bit irrelevant. You said "...people who cycle a lot tend not to have a car" What I wanted to say was an often quoted statistic that says, 80% of cyclists also drive a car. If I did that I guessed you may respond with "where's your evidence?" and quite rightly so. I googled in search of the evidence and all I could find was the survey that indicated that 83% of cyclists live in a household with access to a van or a car. I admit that is probably not the same thing, so you are welcome to ignore.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jun 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> The Mum does the school run on my same commute stretch on an electric assist cargo bike, while the Dad commutes to his work on his own bike, well, naturally



Pardon the aside, but is this the family you're talking about Pat?


----------



## Lavender Rose (13 Jun 2018)

I work in a leisure centre and we run many spin classes in the week, lots of ladies turn up to do them and I always say that the weather is lovely and they should be outside cycling for real - and they all laugh - I think they think that spin is easier and stuff. Alot of them are just lazy. 

I really do think in my head, around here anyway, is that the women you see out on the roads are the serious ones or cycle in groups with the men. I usually only ever see men, if I see women, its mainly on Pendleton shoppers in mint green, popping to the shops with their wooden baskets on the front - and usually older as well. 

I also think its the psychology as well, lots of women think you have to be really fit/fast to go out on the roads. You don't at all - it's about enjoying the countryside or surroundings. Plus, they have the idea that drivers (the minority) are idiots...probably and would rather avoid it.

I love my bikes, they give me a sense of escapism - the open road, pubs...cake stops....no limitiations....What is not to love?! When I compete in duathlon, the mix is 70:30 men to women and the men (in a non patronising way) always respect the women for having a go etc.


----------



## Julia9054 (13 Jun 2018)

Just got back from a solo ride of about 35 miles. Mostly countryside but also taking in Ripon centre. Thought I would be observant for once and take a bit of notice of other cyclists. I was quite heartened to see that the numbers of men and women were roughly equal. What I did notice was more variety in the female cyclists. Some road bike types, old lady on shopper returning home from the centre of Ripon, couple of younger women on hybrids in normal clothes, three knackered looking older women slogging it up a huge hill with a trailer and many, many panniers - kudos to them! All the male cyclists were road types.
Then a giant peloton of about 25 male club riders whizzed past at high speed and spoilt the gender balance completely!
Anecdata of course and probably relevant to nothing, but I thought I'd share.


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2018)

Drago said:


> That's interesting Mr Trousers, but George University is claiming that 75% (exactly?) Of cyclists are male. He makes no mention of mileage or journey stats betwixt the genders.


George University makes no mention of being male or female either (I've known people who were given Georgina or Giorgia as names but used George online) - or did I miss something?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (13 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Pardon the aside, but is this the family you're talking about Pat?
> View attachment 414097


Indeed it is @glasgowcyclist!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jun 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Indeed it is @glasgowcyclist!



I see them most days on my commute and the sight of them always cheers me up.


----------



## slowmotion (14 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> There are two sorts of non cycling women: those who have never cycled and those who have given it up. I didn't start cycling until I was in my late twenties. Right now as you seem to be aware I am having qualms about continuing to cycle, so yes I think I might be able to relate to both types.
> 
> We could also divide non-cycling women another way, those that don't want to cycle, and those that want to cycle yet don't. Probably no one here can relate to the former, but everyone (male and female) have felt the pressure to stop cycling, and even though we have resisted it, we understand why someone might have given into it.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but if the OP asks a question on a cycling forum, people are going to reply, and some of the replies are not going to be links to earnest academic studies, but anecdotal. Some of them might even be from men. I just passed on my wife's and daughter's opinions. Is there a problem?


----------



## Lavender Rose (14 Jun 2018)

User said:


> what absolute nonsense.



Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was implying that the group of women who come to do spin at my work are not serious about cycling.....they only come to cycle so they feel a big better for all their drunken weekend antics sprinkled with takeaways etc


----------



## Lavender Rose (14 Jun 2018)

User said:


> What absolute nonsense



I really don't need to justify myself to you....


----------



## Pat "5mph" (14 Jun 2018)

User said:


> You're not being asked to justify yourself. @User was simply pointing out that your posts appear to contain the sort of ignorant generalisations that don't add anything to the discussion.


I think @Charlotte Alice Button@s post merely contains some of her life experience regarding the topic.
Nothing any of us on this forum can add anything meaningful to this discussion unless we embark in a systematic UK non cycling female population survey, then publish the results.
Of course, we could quote links to similar surveys already done, then close the thread.
Or we could just continue relaying our unscientific life experiences in the matter.
When (if) the OP comes back, I will ask him what he prefers done.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (14 Jun 2018)

User said:


> It might also help if, when making these sort of interventions, you make it clear whether you are doing so in your capacity as a moderator or in a personal capacity. That used to be the practice on this forum but does seem to be somewhat more honoured in the breach these days...


I wouldn't dream of patronizing you with the "mod hat on" thing, I'm sure you know yourself when you've been naughty.
On saying that, I do put the hat on when I'm pulling someone up for breaking the CC rules, if I did forget in the past I apologize.
To clarify, I was commenting as me.
And I believe Charlotte: women, men too, talk all the time about how they got drunk/eat a calorie laden meal/can't remember a thing but was a fab night.
I'm going to they gym today because I eat a domino's last night is also a recurrent topic.
Lazy? Yes, some women (men too, but here the topic is women) are too lazy to cycle, they rather drive: that is exactly what some colleagues told me when I asked why they don't cycle, they said "Nay, I'm too lazy, I drive".


----------



## Pat "5mph" (14 Jun 2018)

*Mod hat on*:
@User not everybody is on CC 24/7.
@User that's great, let's agree to disagree.
Everybody else: let's go back on topic without further ado.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (14 Jun 2018)

User said:


> I don't get the "mod hat on" and I'm not really sure why the mod hat is on, seeing as you weren't answering charlottes post as a mod, why do you need the mod hat on, or are you telling me as you are a mod you are above questioning, in fact I really have no idea what you are on about.


Apologies: it was a joke directed a Reg, you got it that I wasn't answering as Mod.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Jun 2018)

A few days ago, @MontyVeda posed an interesting question about why other countries (I think it was Netherlands but maybe Denmark) have a far higher, sometimes _the_ higher, cycling participation rate.

For me, that question moves on to a slightly different question from the OP's: what is it about the typical UK construction of gender identity that brings about such an imbalance? For example, what is it that makes cycling so unattractive for so many adolescent girls? Obviously, I never went through a female puberty, and I grew up in a family of 3 boys with no sister.

The question is posed as a father of a daughter (who won't get on a bike) and grandfather to a granddaughter who adores being on a bike.


----------



## Inertia (15 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5277572, member: 9609"]Where have I said gender doesnt come into it? I said may be women are not attracted to cycling as much as men are, different sexes like different things. I certainly don't see any significant evidence that one gender is responsible for the other gender not taking part, I get the impression some want to blame men but then some of you seem to like to blame men for about everything.

And where did I say I was bored with it and trying to shut the thread down? I specifically said these threads fascinate me as I was unaware the way some people view these things[/QUOTE]
You are fascinated in the threads but you dont seem fascinated in finding out why more women dont cycle. You seem more fascinated that people care that there is an imbalance, would that be accurate? Is there a reason not to to try and encourage more women to cycle?


----------



## MontyVeda (15 Jun 2018)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> A few days ago, @MontyVeda posed an interesting question about why other countries (I think it was Netherlands but maybe Denmark) have a far higher, sometimes _the_ higher, cycling participation rate.
> 
> For me, that question moves on to a slightly different question from the OP's: what is it about the typical UK construction of gender identity that brings about such an imbalance? For example, what is it that makes cycling so unattractive for so many adolescent girls? Obviously, I never went through a female puberty, and I grew up in a family of 3 boys with no sister.
> 
> The question is posed as a father of a daughter (who won't get on a bike) and grandfather to a granddaughter who adores being on a bike.


It was Germany, Holland and Denmark... all of which are well known for having a better cycling infrastructure and far more utilitarian cyclists than the UK. It could be that it's more of a cultural thing rather than a gendered thing. I wonder in Germany, which apparently has a cycling population (for want of a better term) of 55% female and 45% male, if they're asking why more men don't cycle?


----------



## Lavender Rose (15 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5277563, member: 9609"]it may also be an accurate observation, I take it @Charlotte Alice Button has actual met these women where as you haven't?[/QUOTE]

Yep....it is *not* an generalisation. It was an observation of SOME of the women I see at work. However, there are others who have competed in Half Ironman/Ironman/Triathlon/Duathlons who I have much respect for. I was trying to present a broader spectrum of the type of women who take part in exercise.


----------



## jefmcg (15 Jun 2018)

slowmotion said:


> Is there a problem?


----------



## mjr (15 Jun 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> When (if) the OP comes back, I will ask him what he prefers done.


I'm still loving how many people are assuming it's a "him".


----------



## classic33 (15 Jun 2018)

mjr said:


> I'm still loving how many people are assuming it's a "him".


He's in his third year of his Phd at Manchester.


----------



## sheddy (15 Jun 2018)

Cycling UK ladies survey 
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/womenandcycling


----------



## slowmotion (15 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


>


Sorry, but that isn't very helpful.


----------



## snorri (15 Jun 2018)

mjr said:


> I'm still loving how many people are assuming it's a "him".


Maybe it's just me, but I have yet to meet a "her" called George.


----------



## Inertia (15 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5278733, member: 9609"]Not really,
&
I would like to see more people cycling but I would encourage everyone and not focus on either gender.[/QUOTE]
If there is an imbalance, it could suggest that there may be reasons related to gender that mean less women cycle.

If you don't take gender into account you may not be as successful in encouraging woman as you are men.

As the aim is to encourage as many people as possible it doesn't make much sense not to take it into account, IMO.


----------



## mjr (15 Jun 2018)

snorri said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I have yet to meet a "her" called George.


Meet more people


----------



## Alan O (16 Jun 2018)

Just a minor observation that came to me when reading a different thread...

There's a big youth bike culture round my area these days, and I think that's good. But it's almost entirely boys, and I rarely see a girl among them. I presume it's not due to the same rational reasons that adults might or might not ride bikes, and there's clearly some sort of cultural thing - which I'm guessing is likely to translate to fewer women cyclists of the future.


----------



## User6179 (16 Jun 2018)

User13710 said:


> There is no other way to find out why this is than to use gender as a basis for research



What about personality ?

Rhodes and Smith (2006) brought together and assessed 35 studies that investigated the relationship between the major personality traits (described above) and physical activity. They found that individuals who scored higher on extraversion and conscientiousness and lower on neuroticism traits were most likely to be physically active

In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness.


----------



## User6179 (16 Jun 2018)

User13710 said:


> That would be personality and gender then.



I am saying perhaps one of the reasons people don't cycle is because of their personality, not their biological sex.
Some woman cycle, some men don't.


----------



## User6179 (16 Jun 2018)

User13710 said:


> I expect there are loads of reasons, but are you saying it's not worth trying to find out why proportionally fewer women than men are cycling?



No I am not saying it's not worth trying to find out, the more women cycling the better.


----------



## Crackle (16 Jun 2018)

Eddy said:


> the more woman the better.


Is that a Freudian slip?


----------



## User6179 (16 Jun 2018)

Crackle said:


> Is that a Freudian slip?


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jun 2018)

User13710 said:


> I expect there are loads of reasons, but are you saying it's not worth trying to find out why proportionally fewer women than men are cycling?


Only in certain countries though. The same cannot really be said for Germany and Holland.


----------



## swansonj (16 Jun 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> Only in certain countries though. The same cannot really be said for Germany and Holland.





User13710 said:


> Well yes, this whole thread is about the UK.



And surely, as I'm sure has been said before, that knocks on the head any lingering sense of "well women just don't cycle as much", and justifies the desire to find out why, specifically, UK women don't cycle as much.


----------



## Inertia (16 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5279294, member: 9609"]Solution is to simply make the roads a nicer more pleasant and safer place to be, and if we could achieve this then many more people from both sexes would cycle - but the numbers do not need to be equal.
[/QUOTE]
You arent saying its not a factor, just that you dont think an inbalance is a problem, would that be correct?

For me, such a large imbalance, is a problem.


----------



## classic33 (16 Jun 2018)

How do you go about getting backsides back on saddles though?


----------



## sheddy (16 Jun 2018)

There is the Breeze Rides. Not sure how effective though.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/a...-Women-s-Tour-with-200-000-riders-milestone-0


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (17 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> the school run is not conducive to cycling (kudos to those who manage it)



I don't quite get this school run business. When I was a kid, there was really no such thing as the school run. When we were really small we got walked to and from primary school by parents. Once we were old enough to find our way to and from school without getting lost, we walked to and from school by ourselves. Then, when old enough to go to secondary school, we either walked, cycled, or got the bus - depending on how close the school was, what the weather was like etc. I lived 4 miles from secondary school and went by bus most days, although I would ride my bike sometimes if the weather was nice and I didn't have any heavy stuff to take. Today's parents seem to have morphed into some sort of on-call child taxi service!


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Jun 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I don't quite get this school run business. When I was a kid, there was really no such thing as the school run. When we were really small we got walked to and from primary school by parents. Once we were old enough to find our way to and from school without getting lost, we walked to and from school by ourselves. Then, when old enough to go to secondary school, we either walked, cycled, or got the bus - depending on how close the school was, what the weather was like etc. I lived 4 miles from secondary school and went by bus most days, although I would ride my bike sometimes if the weather was nice and I didn't have any heavy stuff to take. Today's parents seem to have morphed into some sort of on-call child taxi service!


the school run business could be another thread in itself... it certainly wasn't a thing when i was at school either.


----------



## Julia9054 (17 Jun 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> When we were really small we got walked to and from primary school by parents


Which is fine if you have one parent who doesn't have to go out to work
The difference is that now mothers work for a living as families mainly require two incomes to afford the high cost of housing. If your child is too young to walk to school by itself (which mine did as soon as they were old enough), how do they get to school if you then have to go straight on to your job. That is why the school run is now a thing.


----------



## sheddy (17 Jun 2018)

Children & Parents exercising on their way to school is a wonderful thing to see.

The same cannot be said of the School Brum Brum.


----------



## Julia9054 (17 Jun 2018)

sheddy said:


> Children & Parents exercising on their way to school is a wonderful thing to see.
> 
> The same cannot be said of the School Brum Brum.


See above


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (17 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> Which is fine if you have one parent who doesn't have to go out to work
> The difference is that now mothers work for a living as families mainly require two incomes.



It's always been much the same in working class households. The stay at home mum phenomena has always been the preserve of the middle class (and the top echelon, highly skilled, working class) household. I grew up on a council estate and most of the women still had jobs back then. The difference is they generally worked part-time during school hours or later on in the evening when the kids and the old man were all back home. What they didn't do was dump the kids in expensive day nurseries and then work full-time to try to earn enough to pay for the nursery fees that they wouldn't need in the first place if they didn't work such long hours. Childcare, where needed, was mostly done informally by friends & neighbours - who kept an eye on kids until their parents returned.
To get back to the cycling bit, quite a lot of men still rode bikes to work if they were within reasonable distance. Women generally didn't cycle for work or leisure back then either, at least not the ones with families. My mum was a cyclist when she was young, but largely gave it up when I was born. She had a 1949 Hercules Sports bike from new, which my dad eventually managed to get nicked from outside a pub. She was absolutely furious, and gave him a massive bollocking for losing it, but she never replaced it with another bike.


----------



## Julia9054 (17 Jun 2018)

Working patterns for men and for women, for working class and middle class have changed. Harking back to when i were a lad doesn't provide any answers for anything relevant to now.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Jun 2018)

User said:


> I must introduce you to my sister - officially Georgina but woe betide you if you call her that. Since childhood she has been George and was even called that by teachers at school.


Plus it's an important part of English culture... 

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eRQtV6tNOEE&t=860


----------



## User10119 (19 Jun 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> What they didn't do was dump the kids in expensive day nurseries and then work full-time to try to earn enough to pay for the nursery fees that they wouldn't need in the first place if they didn't work such long hours.


What a bunch of sanctimonious sexist twaddle. Why don't you just hop on your skipbike back to the 50s?


----------



## Spinney (19 Jun 2018)

sheddy said:


> Cycling UK ladies survey
> https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/womenandcycling


What a rubbish survey!
What would I give up for cycling - well, footie/World Cup, naturally, as I take no interest in it at all. That gives no indication whatsoever of how much I value cycling.
And how is 'Exercise/fitness' different from 'Health'?
etc


----------



## jefmcg (19 Jun 2018)

Spinney said:


> What a rubbish survey!
> What would I give up for cycling - well, footie/World Cup, naturally, as I take no interest in it at all. That gives no indication whatsoever of how much I value cycling.
> And how is 'Exercise/fitness' different from 'Health'?
> etc


I hadn't clicked the before.

Did they bother proof reading it? The answers are in alphabetical order, so "None of the above" is right in the middle of the list. Also "*My* partner/family" in the same list "*Your* job"

Well yes, I'd quite happily give up your job for cycling.


----------



## snorri (19 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> Plus it's an important part of English culture...


That explains why I had not heard of the usage, it's a regional thing


----------



## MontyVeda (19 Jun 2018)

snorri said:


> That explains why I had not heard of the usage, it's a regional thing


Enid Blyton's_ Famous Five_ is a regional thing?


----------



## Profpointy (19 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5282462, member: 10119"]What a bunch of sanctimonious sexist twaddle. Why don't you just hop on your skipbike back to the 50s?[/QUOTE]


I'm sure he can answer for himself but that's a rather naughty bit of selective quoting to get the sexist dig in.


----------



## Julia9054 (19 Jun 2018)

Profpointy said:


> I'm sure he can answer for himself but that's a rather naughty bit of selective quoting to get the sexist dig in.


The rest of his post is pretty sexist too. That better?


----------



## Profpointy (19 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> The rest of his post is pretty sexist too. That better?



Serious question, what bit of his description of (mostly working class) family life is sexist ?

Or for that matter inaccurate?

I do accept that things were very sexist in the 60s and 70s, but that's a different point from accusing him of being sexist


----------



## Julia9054 (19 Jun 2018)

Profpointy said:


> Serious question, what bit of his description of (mostly working class) family life is sexist ?
> 
> Or for that matter inaccurate?
> 
> I do accept that things were very sexist in the 60s and 70s, but that's a different point from accusing him of being sexist


The inference that this is the correct way for women to work and that we should be doing jobs that fit around taking our children to school (the sort of jobs that are generally low status and low paid)


----------



## Profpointy (19 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> The inference that this is the correct way for women to work and that we should be doing jobs that fit around taking our children to school (the sort of jobs that are generally low status and low paid)



I think that is your inference rather than an implication of what is said


----------



## jefmcg (19 Jun 2018)

Profpointy said:


> I think that is your inference rather than an implication of what is said





SkipdiverJohn said:


> What they didn't do was *dump* the kids in expensive day nurseries and then work full-time to try to earn enough to pay for the nursery fees that they wouldn't need in the first place if they didn't work such long hours.


----------



## User10119 (19 Jun 2018)

Profpointy said:


> I'm sure he can answer for himself but that's a rather naughty bit of selective quoting to get the sexist dig in.


Or, to offer an alternative perspective; it was a particularly deliberately selective bit of quoting of the part of the post commenting on the lives and choices of contemporary working women. That's neither 'naughty' nor a 'dig'.


SkipdiverJohn said:


> What they didn't do was dump the kids in expensive day nurseries and then work full-time to try to earn enough to pay for the nursery fees that they wouldn't need in the first place if they didn't work such long hours


"They", in this context, being women. The ones who, as @jefmcg points out are apparently 'dumping' (a somewhat judgemental term that conveys meaning, don't you think?) their kids in daycare unlike, presumably, the men who father them, because naturally it is completely common sense that women should be the ones with the responsibility for childcare and the rearing of sprogs. As @Julia9054 says:


Julia9054 said:


> Working patterns for men and for women, for working class and middle class have changed


The world has changed. House prices and rents are unaffordable for most single income families. For many families the only way to afford the basics is to have two working parents. Many of the families I know aren't able to use free childcare provided by family, because their families aren't local since people move to where the jobs are - or because Granny and Grandad are still working full-time themselves to afford their mortgages and gas bills. With far fewer cars (and more cyclists) on the roads, those roads genuinely were safer for kids to walk themselves to and from school.
As to the historical accuracy or otherwise,


> Harking back to when i were a lad doesn't provide any answers for anything relevant to now.


Although, for what it's worth, my gran cycled and then my mum cycled to work in her various (low-paid, part-time, fitting into the bits of the day around a full-time-and-then-some work as a caregiver) jobs for much of my childhood. As you say,


Profpointy said:


> I do accept that things were very sexist in the 60s and 70s, but that's a different point from accusing him of being sexist


Which is why I carefully selected the part of the post that seemed to me to be making comment on the lives and choices of women today, which I found sanctimonious and sexist. I also quite carefully _didn't_ say that any individual was sanctimonious or sexist, simply that the I found the twaddle that I quoted to be so. Everyone is free to decide whether they think the rest is historical comment or a rose-tinted nostalgia fest for a time when men were men and women were women and, what's more, knew their place.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w


----------



## mjr (20 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> Which is fine if you have one parent who doesn't have to go out to work
> The difference is that now mothers work for a living as families mainly require two incomes to afford the high cost of housing. If your child is too young to walk to school by itself (which mine did as soon as they were old enough), how do they get to school if you then have to go straight on to your job. That is why the school run is now a thing.


Both my parents worked most of the time me and my brothers were at school. I am fairly sure that we still got walked to school by my mother until we were considered old enough to go it alone. Once at secondary school, we went by bus at first and then I think when I was allowed to cycle, I did it for a few weeks by waiting after school for my father to finish work at 4 or something like that until they were OK about me riding across the countryside alone.

I wonder if one difference is that there used to be more flexibility in working hours (more jobs with hours possible for parents of school-age children perhaps? I think my mother started work at 9.30 or 10, while my father started some time between 7 and 8) and more of a spread of employment locations, rather than so many people commuting to a few town-based employment zones all at the same time and seemingly all trying to do it by car single-file instead of the old five-abreast cycling/walking exodus from factory sites.

One difficult question is whether this concentration of 9-5ish town-ish jobs arose because of motoring (so employers no longer needed to worry so much about flexible hours or going where untapped pools of skilled workers are) or whether it led to motoring (because it's not so easy to meet the constraints of work and family otherwise) or whether it's a downward spiral.


----------



## mjr (20 Jun 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> Working patterns for men and for women, for working class and middle class have changed. Harking back to when i were a lad doesn't provide any answers for anything relevant to now.


I disagree - it might help to figured out what changed and, as I just wrote to give an example in far too many words, I strongly suspect it's not that both working-class parents now work.


----------



## sheddy (20 Jun 2018)

Pissed - so apologies if posted before - https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/women-cycling


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (24 Jun 2018)

mjr said:


> I wonder if one difference is that there used to be more flexibility in working hours (more jobs with hours possible for parents of school-age children perhaps? I think my mother started work at 9.30 or 10, while my father started some time between 7 and 8) and more of a spread of employment locations, rather than so many people commuting to a few town-based employment zones all at the same time and seemingly all trying to do it by car single-file instead of the old five-abreast cycling/walking exodus from factory sites.
> 
> One difficult question is whether this concentration of 9-5ish town-ish jobs arose because of motoring (so employers no longer needed to worry so much about flexible hours or going where untapped pools of skilled workers are) or whether it led to motoring (because it's not so easy to meet the constraints of work and family otherwise) or whether it's a downward spiral.



There's more flexibility in the working hours on offer than ever - depending on what sort of work you are willing to do. There are plenty of jobs where you can work a few hours during the day, or a few hours later in the evening. There always has been. The difference is the militant feminists now consider it demeaning to do the sort of work that affords the most flexible hours, because it usually carries a lesser pay rate and social status than doing a "proper" full time job.

I don't think motoring has played any significant part in the arrangement of working hours. Certain types of jobs i.e. manual/industrial, have always tended to have earlier start times in the morning, compared to non-manual/office work. One historical reason would simply be to maximize the available daylight working hours during the winter. Those types of jobs were predominantly done by men and existed both before, and after, mass car ownership.
Other jobs, involving office work, shop work, banking, tended to have later start times - and women tend to outnumber men in those occupations. They have also existed before mass car ownership. Apart from longer retailing opening hours, I don't see much change in the others.
What did occur from the end of WW2, for a period of about 30-35 years, is that in real terms the wages and living standards for the bulk of the population in the West rose, whilst the real cost of consumer durables like cars and domestic appliances, fell. That meant social changes occurred such as cars gradually taking over from commuting by public transport or cycle, and cycling increasingly became a leisure activity not a utility one. By historic standards, Labour got a greater share of the wealth their efforts created, compared to Capitalists, than at any time before or since.
Since the end of that "golden era" real western living standards have essentially flatlined, but the illusion of increasing material wealth has been kept up by the expansion of cheap credit and the associated debt burden. Asset price growth has far outstripped wage growth for at least 30 years. That has created a situation where many adults are now like hamsters running on their wheels, trying to maintain a materialistic standard of living they have come to expect, but can't actually sustain indefinitely.


----------



## User10119 (24 Jun 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The difference is the militant feminists now consider it demeaning to do the sort of work that affords the most flexible hours, because it usually carries a lesser pay rate and social status than doing a "proper" full time job.



So, anyone with me in the 'sanctimonious sexist twaddle' opinion _this_ time around?




(edit for typo)


----------



## Julia9054 (24 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5288842, member: 10119"]So, anyone with me in the 'santimonious sexist twaddle' opinion _this_ time around?[/QUOTE]
Nah - as a militant feminist, I'm out. T**tdiver John has it all covered.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5288842, member: 10119"]So, anyone with me in the 'santimonious sexist twaddle' opinion _this_ time around?[/QUOTE]
No, that would involve me reading past "militant feminists"

I assume he mentioned bra burning at some point.

Edit: a partial TMN to @Julia9054


----------



## TVC (24 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> No, that would involve me reading past "militant feminists"
> 
> I assume he mentioned bra burning at some point.
> 
> Edit: a partial TMN to @Julia9054


I stopped at militant feminist because anything said after that is without value.


----------



## MontyVeda (24 Jun 2018)

jefmcg said:


> No, that would involve me reading past "militant feminists"
> 
> *I assume he mentioned bra burning at some point.*
> 
> Edit: a partial TMN to @Julia9054



Unfortunately not.


----------



## srw (24 Jun 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Asset price growth has far outstripped wage growth for at least 30 years.



Leaving aside for the moment the rampant sexism earlier in your post, I rather suspect that you have misremembered your reading of Picketty, who said something similar enough not to be a coincidence but different enough that you've got it very wrong.

Or, more likely, that you've recently read and misunderstood an article that misunderstands Picketty. Your whole ramble reads like something off the Canary or Squawkbox or Spiked - about as reliable as Breitbart for political analysis.


----------



## Profpointy (24 Jun 2018)

User said:


> See! Told you that Jurassic Park wasn’t as far fetched as you suggested... dinosaurs do still walk the Earth.



Point of pedantry: dinisaurs do fly about the earth, and walk on occasion


----------



## srw (24 Jun 2018)

Profpointy said:


> Point of pedantry: dinisaurs do fly about the earth, and walk on occasion


Point of pedantry: over the last several million years, evolution has meant that the species we have are no longer dinosaurs.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Jun 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The difference is the militant feminists now consider it demeaning to do the sort of work that affords the most flexible hours, because it usually carries a lesser pay rate and social status than doing a "proper" full time job.


Perhaps women today can do those better paid jobs because they had a chance of a better education, so, why shouldn't they?
Childcare is needed for maybe 14 years of a child's life, while our working years are getting more, why waste them if you have a chance to do better?

Back to the cycling, I am in one of those low paid jobs.
We are not required to wear make up, we wear a uniform, we get sweaty and dirty during shift.
One would think some of the obstacles to cycling to work are removed: the need to change in office wear, the need to do one's hair and make up after cycling, the need to have another shower before shift.
And yet, there are only a handful of women in my work that cycle in.
But equally, there are only a handful of men that do.


----------



## Slick (24 Jun 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Perhaps women today can do those better paid jobs because they had a chance of a better education, so, why shouldn't they?
> Childcare is needed for maybe 14 years of a child's life, while our working years are getting more, why waste them if you have a chance to do better?
> 
> Back to the cycling, I am in one of those low paid jobs.
> ...


There's probably around 100 staff at my work, mostly female at a guess 4 to 1. There are probably the same amount of visitors at any particular time almost exclusively males but there are a few females and I'm the only one who cycles.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Jun 2018)

Seems @Slick the numbers are similar: we are about 500 staff on any one time (more overall, most work shifts) and around a dozen cycle regularly, so you see 6 to 8 bikes in the staff shed at most times.
The visitor bike park can get busier than the staff bike park during a busy event!


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (24 Jun 2018)

srw said:


> Leaving aside for the moment the rampant sexism earlier in your post, I rather suspect that you have misremembered your reading of Picketty, who said something similar enough not to be a coincidence but different enough that you've got it very wrong..



I know who Piketty is but I've never read his writings, so you are wrong on that score. I am correct in asserting the divergence of asset price growth from wages. In 1992, my house was worth 3 1/2 times my basic salary, now it's worth 10 times. The reason that growth took place was largely due to the availability of ever increasing amounts of credit, bigger mortgages more loans etc. When the money supply increases too rapidly you get asset inflation. The consequences are that people have to pay much more to acquire assets like houses, and servicing the debt requires two incomes not one. Eventually the bubble will burst, and the results will send western living standards back down to their historical norm, not the brief post WW2 comfort zone.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Jun 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The difference is the militant feminists now consider it demeaning to do the sort of work that affords the most flexible hours, because it usually carries a lesser pay rate and social status than doing a "proper" full time job.


No, not for me. More that feminists reject the notion that women should be _restricted _to that kind of work.


----------



## mjr (24 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5288842, member: 10119"]So, anyone with me in the 'sanctimonious sexist twaddle' opinion _this_ time around?




(edit for typo)[/QUOTE]
I actually winced while reading it. Foot so far in the mouth as to be able to scratch his bum with his toenails...


----------



## The Crofted Crest (24 Jun 2018)

To skip (ho, ho) to the thread lock, women don't cycle because they should be at home looking after the kids.


----------



## User10119 (24 Jun 2018)

User13710 said:


> And then, no, wait, don't tell me. Women won't need to work any more, and they'll have more time for cycling?


Oh dear, you've got your pretty little head all mixed up... they always did work. Just in appropriately peripheral jobs, as befitted them.


The Crofted Crest said:


> To skip (ho, ho) to the thread lock, women don't cycle because they should be at home looking after the kids.


Except when the 'old man' is home or the kids can be farmed out to other women, when they should be out working in the above suitable employment.


----------



## Profpointy (24 Jun 2018)

srw said:


> Point of pedantry: over the last several million years, evolution has meant that the species we have are no longer dinosaurs.



birds are dinosaurs I'm given to understand


----------



## swansonj (25 Jun 2018)

srw said:


> Point of pedantry: over the last several million years, evolution has meant that the species we have are no longer dinosaurs.





Profpointy said:


> birds are dinosaurs I'm given to understand



Do either of you seriously think that the question of whether birds are or are not dinosaurs is anything other than a completely arbitrary definition?


----------



## srw (25 Jun 2018)

swansonj said:


> Do either of you seriously think that the question of whether birds are or are not dinosaurs is anything other than a completely arbitrary definition?


Not entirely arbitrary, like all speciation questions - I think you will struggle to find a coherent argument that Homo sapiens is a bird, for instance - but at the margins pretty arbitrary.

We find it convenient to use the term "dinosaurs" for a group of species that, as far as we know, dominated the planet's ecosystems millions of years ago. (It is also a useful metaphor for a bundle of social attitudes that are still, inexplicably, held by otherwise intelligent people.) But to claim that a group of species which we believe evolved from dinosaurs and which share some characteristics, as far as we know, with dinosaurs, therefore are dinosaurs feels like something of a stretch. I might as well claim that @SkipdiverJohn is some kind of prehistoric shrew.


----------



## Profpointy (25 Jun 2018)

srw said:


> Not entirely arbitrary, like all speciation questions - I think you will struggle to find a coherent argument that Homo sapiens is a bird, for instance - but at the margins pretty arbitrary.
> 
> We find it convenient to use the term "dinosaurs" for a group of species that, as far as we know, dominated the planet's ecosystems millions of years ago. (It is also a useful metaphor for a bundle of social attitudes that are still, inexplicably, held by otherwise intelligent people.) But to claim that a group of species which we believe evolved from dinosaurs and which share some characteristics, as far as we know, with dinosaurs, therefore are dinosaurs feels like something of a stretch. I might as well claim that @SkipdiverJohn is some kind of prehistoric shrew.



Well OT now; my fault, but i'm happy tol accept the modern scientific view that birds are dinosaurs, just like apes are mammals, and that it really isn't a "when does a pile become a heap" argument. It is usual to talk of "non-avian dinosaurs" if you want to exclude birds for any reason, but even then you've got the problem of how bird like a dinosaur has to be to not be a dinosaur. Modern crocodiles are descended from somewhat different prehistoric ones after all. Reptiles on the other hand is a much more confused and questionable categorisation.

Any sorry for the derail, but maybe an improvement on the name calling instead of discussion above


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2018)

Thread on women cycling has evolved into a discussion about birds. Is this an entry into some competition for most inappropriate satire? If not, I think I can see some dinosaurs...


----------



## classic33 (25 Jun 2018)

Profpointy said:


> Well OT now; my fault, but i'm happy tol accept the modern scientific view that birds are dinosaurs, just like apes are mammals, and that it really isn't a "when does a pile become a heap" argument. It is usual to talk of "non-avian dinosaurs" if you want to exclude birds for any reason, but even then you've got the problem of how bird like a dinosaur has to be to not be a dinosaur. Modern crocodiles are descended from somewhat different prehistoric ones after all. Reptiles on the other hand is a much more confused and questionable categorisation.
> 
> Any sorry for the derail, but maybe an improvement on the name calling instead of discussion above


What about a platypus.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Jun 2018)

Ok, if you REALLY want to talk dinosaurs, please take it to a more appropriate thread.


----------



## Moderators (25 Jun 2018)

Thread locked pending clean up of OT posts.


----------

