Why don't women cycle?

[Profpointy]

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]

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]

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]

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

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'.

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:

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,

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

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]

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]

[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]

[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]

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]

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]

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.