Why Does the CTC Discriminate Against Joint/ Family Members?

[Vorpal]

I think that's fair enough. Although I do think that it encourages additional members, especially in households where one or more family members cycle infrequently. Mr. V never would not have joined any cycling organisations on his own. But once I was paying for myself and the children to belong, it seemed silly not to just get a family membership.

In our case, Mr. V never wanted his own card.

[blackbike]

The sending out of only one card would thus be potentially discriminatory against many female partners.

How?

The male and female in each couple considering joint membership are entirely free to agree between themselves whose name goes on the single card.

If some CTC members live in old-fashioned families where the man of the house takes charge of all non-domestic matters then that is hardly the CTC's fault or the CTC's business.

[Dafydd17]

Um...one name on one card...sounds more like individual membership to me. If you can't have a card each, it's hardly family membership, is it?

[geomannie]

geomannie wrote:

The sending out of only one card would thus be potentially discriminatory against many female partners.

How?

The male and female in each couple considering joint membership are entirely free to agree between themselves whose name goes on the single card.

If some CTC members live in old-fashioned families where the man of the house takes charge of all non-domestic matters then that is hardly the CTC's fault or the CTC's business.

Hi blackbike

You have quoted us selectively. We were more nuanced in our statement of whether men or women are more likely to be the primary applicant for joint CTC membership. Our position is that men are considerably more likely to be cyclists than women (as quoted by the CTC http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycl ... an%20women?) and on this basis it is reasonable to think that they would be more motivated than women to make a joint CTC membership application. This may be wholly incorrect but unless the CTC tell us the figures we are in the dark.

Nonetheless, your point is valid, anyone, male or female can be the primary applicant, but this is the real world. Based on what we know about the sex-split of cycle activity, we would put a fair bet on more men being primary applicants than women. If this is true, then their (predominantly female?) partners, while being full CTC members, lose out by not receiving a membership card.

If partners are full members, should they not have full membership rights by default? This includes sending all joint members a card by default.

[blackbike]

Nonetheless, your point is valid, anyone, male or female can be the primary applicant, but this is the real world. Based on what we know about the sex-split of cycle activity, we would put a fair bet on more men being primary applicants than women. If this is true, then their (predominantly female?) partners, while being full CTC members, lose out by not receiving a membership card.

If partners are full members, should they not have full membership rights by default? This includes sending all joint members a card by default.

It is up to the couple to decide how to run their own affairs. If the man applies without asking the woman, or the other way round, then any discrimination exists in the couple, not the CTC.

It is not the CTC's job to cure discrimination and sexism within couples, or to assume it exist because of the way they apply for membership.

Is there any evidence that this matter is an issue with the wider membership?

If not, what is the problem?

Now that the CTC is a charity I can see the advantages in spotting discrimination where none really exists, as it helps with grant applications.

But I don't want the CTC going down that cynical path.

[landsurfer]

Well said Blackbike ....

Julie and I are members of the MX 5 Owners club. They only send out 1 card for our joint membership .... but it has both our names on it ...... easy really .

[Tangled Metal]

That's the thing isn't it, there is only one name on the one card? If they put both names of the joint members then it's a joint membership card. One name it's almost like there is only one member

Isn't CTC bigger than.the mx5 owner's club? So why can't they put two names on or issue one card per member irrespective of class of membership. That's simple surely? Other clubs can manage it.

[mjr]

Is there any evidence that this matter is an issue with the wider membership?

Yes, that one of those members felt it worth posting about it!

Maybe CTC could ask any one of thousands of other organisations how they manage to send each family member a membership card. It's been a while since I've heard of an organisation that didn't want to engage as many of its members as possible and foster a sense of belonging.

[AlaninWales]

Is there any evidence that this matter is an issue with the wider membership?

Yes, that one of those members felt it worth posting about it!

Maybe CTC could ask any one of thousands of other organisations how they manage to send each family member a membership card. It's been a while since I've heard of an organisation that didn't want to engage as many of its members as possible and foster a sense of belonging.

I hate to seem paranoid but .... ahhh ... ?

[blackbike]

Is there any evidence that this matter is an issue with the wider membership?

Yes, that one of those members felt it worth posting about it!

One member is not the wider membership.

Anyone can post a topic on here, even if nobody else is remotely interested.

Has the CTC had any letters or emails from members about this topic?

When the CTC was a club it could cater for the interests and concerns of the members - mainly middle aged men who like cycling round the countryside on touring bikes which everyone else thinks are old -fashioned and boring like their riders. I saw no problem with that, just as I see no problem with the WI concentrating on the interests of their female members. I don't mind that it doesn't try to attract men like me by neglecting to cater for people interested in cycling, beer, 70s motorbikes, football and rugby league.

I did not want the CTC to become a charity. I have experience of how modern charities work, and they are too eager to appear inclusive because that's the way they attract public money for the wages of their employees.

Of course, the CTC should not actively discriminate against anyone who wants to join, but it is supposed to be an organisation for touring cyclists, and if most of them are men than why worry? We don't hear any concerns about flower arranging groups or knitting circles being almost exclusively female.

[geomannie]

Of course, the CTC should not actively discriminate against anyone who wants to join, but it is supposed to be an organisation for touring cyclists, and if most of them are men than why worry? We don't hear any concerns about flower arranging groups or knitting circles being almost exclusively female.

blackbike, I think that we are getting off the main issues that can be stated as follows

Q. Is my wife a full member of CTC?
A. Yes she is.

Q. Is she discriminated against in any way?
A. Yes, she does not receive a membership card by default.

Q. If my wife had made the initial application for the joint membership, would I be discriminated against?
A. Yes, I would not receive a card by default.

Q. Are women in general discriminated against by the joint membership card-issuing policy?
A. Maybe. More men than women cycle by a significant majority, so it is more likely that they will be the primary signatory to a joint membership.

The answers to the first 3 questions are clear. There is discrimination against a group of CTC members, which includes both male and female members. Discrimination is discrimination and is simply wrong, even if saves the CTC a small amount of money. On the question of whether women are more likely to more discriminated against is currently not proven, but is likely and could easily be tested from the CTC membership records.

[Psamathe]

Nonetheless, your point is valid, anyone, male or female can be the primary applicant, but this is the real world. Based on what we know about the sex-split of cycle activity, we would put a fair bet on more men being primary applicants than women. If this is true, then their (predominantly female?) partners, while being full CTC members, lose out by not receiving a membership card.

If partners are full members, should they not have full membership rights by default? This includes sending all joint members a card by default.

It is up to the couple to decide how to run their own affairs. If the man applies without asking the woman, or the other way round, then any discrimination exists in the couple, not the CTC.

It is not the CTC's job to cure discrimination and sexism within couples, or to assume it exist because of the way they apply for membership.
....

I would agree. It is down to couple using the family membership to decide between themselves who is the card holder (or if they both want cards). It is a reduced price membership so if they want to be treated as two completely separate members both with full membership privileges then they can both join independently (paying the normal membership fee).

If there is any discrimination (as I pointed out previously) it is discrimination against single unattached members who have no option for reduced membership by not taking all CUK member benefits (e.g. Cycle Magazine).

Ian

[FarOeuf]

The answers to the first 3 questions are clear. There is discrimination against a group of CTC members, which includes both male and female members. Discrimination is discrimination and is simply wrong, even if saves the CTC a small amount of money. On the question of whether women are more likely to more discriminated against is currently not proven, but is likely and could easily be tested from the CTC membership records.

What you're describing is not discrimination. Group A and group B have equal opportunity to have their name on a card. You can't discriminate against both group A and group B at the same time. And whether a member from group A or B is more likely to not have their name on the card is completely outside of the control of the people writing the name on the card, if it's simply down to whom decides to fill out the application.

What you're describing is a system that doesn't appear to be particularly well thought out, but that's about it.

EDIT: typo

[mjr]

Is there any evidence that this matter is an issue with the wider membership?

Yes, that one of those members felt it worth posting about it!

One member is not the wider membership.

Anyone can post a topic on here, even if nobody else is remotely interested.

Indeed. It's not proof but it is evidence.

Has the CTC had any letters or emails from members about this topic?

I don't know. Have you asked them?

[Tangled Metal]

Someone posted the exact words used for family or joint membership. It seemed to me that you could get it if a single parent. It says two adults in the same address and.families. So if you are one parent with unlimited children this membership option is available. No discrimination there.

As I see it the only issue raised was the one card for two adults (plus unknown number of children). Irrelevant about the name because one member one card would make name on the card inconsequential.

This discounted membership does not mean the person.making the application is the only member. This membership class gives all in that family or both adults in the same house full membership status.

Take an.example of two parents and 2 kids, both parents get full adult membership and the kids benefit from that too (is there a a junior membership class for kids?). One of the benefits of membership is discounts at cycle shops and possibly other shops too. With one card It's hard for both members to get that benefit unless both shop together. BTW if it's two adults in a shared house taking advantage of this class of membership. That issue would mean the person with the name on the card having to buy stuff for the second person to get the discount. Some retailers are really that strict with such discount schemes.

Now you can be apply for the extra cards. IMHO that's inconvenient to say the least. Plus you'll have to wait for your card. It seems just plain wrong.

BTW is the discount for the savings due to only one card or the one application to process, one cycle magazine to send, one postage, etc.? How much would one more card cost? So the class of membership goes up a pound to.cover it. I bet people would accept that. Why don't they just do it right?