Why don't women cycle?

[Profpointy]

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]

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"]

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]

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.

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"]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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

 

[User10119]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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...