because there is a women's cycling interest forum....

Anything about use of this forum : NOT about cycling
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: because there is a women's cycling interest forum....

Postby Bicycler » 18 Jun 2014, 11:09am

Good idea but which section should it be in?

I think it should be up to the poster. If that allows one hobby-horse owner to post one for sale who wouldn't otherwise do so then it can only be a good thing. They should be allowed to post where they feel comfortable posting :wink:

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: because there is a women's cycling interest forum....

Postby Edwards » 18 Jun 2014, 11:19am

Bicycler wrote:
Good idea but which section should it be in?

I think it should be up to the poster. If that allows one hobby-horse owner to post one for sale who wouldn't otherwise do so then it can only be a good thing. They should be allowed to post where they feel comfortable posting :wink:


Maybe the moderators could create a Hobby-Horse section. That would solve the problem. :lol:

Sorry to create more work for the volunteers who give up their own time to run this forum and without whom there would be not forum.
So I would like to say thanks to all the moderators for their help and patience at this trying time.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Flinders
Posts: 3022
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: because there is a women's cycling interest forum....

Postby Flinders » 29 Mar 2015, 8:43pm

I just can't see why the thread couldn't have been left where the OP put it.
It wasn't like she had misunderstood what her options were- as you might have done if you hadn't realised there was a dedicated board for your area (e.g. had posted a specific technical query in the Teashop where people who could answer it might not see it).

Flinders
Posts: 3022
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: because there is a women's cycling interest forum....

Postby Flinders » 29 Mar 2015, 8:47pm

Bicycler wrote:That had been my position and I do wish to point out that I'm not one of the people who set themselves against the women's section. I just saw that thread, posted by a regular male poster in the women's section because it was about a female cycle record holder as taking us down an undesirable path whereby the achievements of female cyclists are deemed to be predominately (or solely) of interest to women.



Surely the women's section is
a) for men to post in as well as women
b) for things [i]about [/i]women, just as much as posted by women

Things is, the way it's going, on one hand we're getting threads moved from the women's section against the wishes of the original posters, and then people are whining that there isn't enough traffic on the women's section to justify having it.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: because there is a women's cycling interest forum....

Postby Bicycler » 30 Mar 2015, 12:22am

I'm curious as to why you've dragged up a post of mine from June 2014. Try to understand it in context. If you recall the impetus for the creation of the section was a long discussion in a main forum thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=82890&hilit=women) about the lack of women on the forum. At the time it was suggested that one major reason for this was a perception of male dominance in the discussions on the forum. It was suggested that a section should be created where new women reluctant to post in the rest of the forum might feel more comfortable posting and where female voices were not lost in amongst the male majority. It would also provide a place to discuss female specific issues.

IIRC the post you quoted related to a new thread about Beryl Burton posted by a male poster in the "Women's Section" (as it was then) presumably because it concerned a female cyclist. I suggested that it was moved and merged with a thread about the same subject that had been created in the main "Does Anybody Know?" section. I thought it a more appropriate place because I wanted to comment on the story and suspected that many male posters may have wished to do the same and indeed that was the case. I was wary that the Women's Section was then new and the intention was not to have a male dominated area. I alone didn't cause the thread to be shifted, I made the suggestion and at the time the mod (Vorpal?) agreed. There's nothing unusual about threads being moved, the mods do it quite frequently where it is felt that a thread might be better in another section.

Times have changed and as I noted in a recent post (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=95133&start=15#p880986) the actual usage of the section has been different to how it had been envisaged. Rather than a "Women's Section" it has been focused upon "Women's Cycling Interests" and was soon retitled to reflect that. Now the section is more established I no longer feel wary (as a man) of commenting on topics within. Now I broadly agree with your summary of what the section has come to be about.

What I was pushing for around the time of the post you quoted was some kind of guidance on what ought to be within the section. It seemed undesirable to have concurrent duplicate threads on the same subject and I did have reservations about general interest topics concerning women being consigned to the Women's Section. The Beryl Burton thread was a good example of both. I thought that posting a thread about one of our greatest cyclists in the "Women's Section" risked implying she was of interest only (or even primarily) to women. We would not class Chris Froome as a men's interest! In short I thought that a line ought to be drawn between women-specific threads and general threads about people who happened to be female. I thought that including the latter risked increasing rather than reducing the perceived male-dominance of the main forum. As the focus of the section has shifted, I am no longer overly concerned about that, but I still feel that female racing cyclists' major achievements ought to be considered as being general interest in the same way as their male counterparts'.

IMO, the section as it is seems to have become quite a handy source of reference for women-specific queries and so it should not be removed. I don't see why people feel the need to question its future on the basis that there have not been many posts. Far better to have fewer easily locatable posts of primarily female interest than for those to be lost amongst loads of general interest threads which concern one or more women. In any case, the fact that the BB thread was merged and another couple of threads have been moved doesn't significantly affect the forum traffic of the section. IIRC the two threads which have been moved have been this one originally questioning the section's existence and the other new thread questioning the section's continued existence so these threads probably ought to be excluded if basing a decision on forum traffic anyway.

Sorry for the essay, I hope that explains my view and actions at the time.