Women only club rides

[mattheus]

We may be at cross-purposes :-)
I can only go by their website, but they look pretty inclusive/diverse. The ride descriptions seem to cover a wide range, and there are pics of

Maybe we are, but they don't meet mjr's criteria that you jumped in to praise.

Oh woe is me. I tried to be positive, but it seems I'm still in the wrong

[mattheus]

Regarding clubs that require helmets (edited reply):

Yes, I thought you’d say something like that, although I confess to being surprised/baffled by the last clause.

It makes me sad that groups of cyclists (like your group) choose to create divisions like this.


It's weird to make people wear what you choose on their head, when they just want to join some group rides.
(and/or exclude people who have a different view to you)

[Nearholmer]

This is much more a “helmet discussions” thing than a “women only club rides” thing, unless I suppose anyone could demonstrate that it was indirectly discriminative against women, so best taken elsewhere.

[mjr]

This is much more a “helmet discussions” thing than a “women only club rides” thing, unless I suppose anyone could demonstrate that it was indirectly discriminative against women, so best taken elsewhere.

Isn't it well-known that fewer women use helmets and more women are deterred by helmet-forcing?

Evidence also suggests that cycle helmets have a deterrent effect on women’s propensity to cycle, and that this would be exacerbated by compulsion.

[...] men are about three times as likely to cycle as women in Britain.94 Also, women are more likely to think cycling is dangerous,95 although seeing other people cycle seems to encourage them – a clear correlation has been found between levels of cycle use in different areas and the proportion of cycle trips being made by women.96

A survey of 1,099 women, carried out by YouGov for Cycling England back in 2008, found that more than a quarter (27%) of respondents in the 18-24 year old age group said they were put off cycling by the fact that cycle helmets might mess up their hair.97

This seems to suggest that one way of encouraging more women to cycle is to promote it as a safe and/or stylish activity, entirely possible in whatever clothes women feel comfortable wearing, with or without headgear.

On the one hand, that's all true, and I have indeed known several women but only one man who drive instead of cycling to preserve their hairstyle. Some of them have spoken in favour of cycle helmets, usually seeming based on propaganda and a very sketchy understanding of the issues, which I didn't always push back on very hard in order to preserve friendships! I also know at least one woman who usually uses a helmet but doesn't on the way back from the hairdresser or on the way to the theatres, concerts and similar events. There are occasional articles about helmet-compatible hairstyles and those are mostly aimed at women, such as https://hair.allwomenstalk.com/great-ha ... ng-a-bike/

On the other hand, I don't think the briefing goes far enough about how helmet-pushing discriminates against women in two ways:

Firstly, on a practical note, the range of helmets for women is much more limited than for men, even if you have an average-sized head, and then you get stupid things hidden in some helmet manuals like Specialized saying some of theirs shouldn't be worn with "voluminous hairstyles"... and while those are not limited to women, current fashions/styles are such that it will disproportionately affect them.

Secondly, on a very societal note, the whole "your body, my choice" aspect of telling other people what to wear has some very dark echoes, especially when it's a mostly-male or all-male club committee feeling it's OK to make irrational rules for what women are allowed to wear, which seems likely to deter women more than men, and especially survivors of abusive/controlling relationships. I think that's the "red flag for attitudes" that another poster mentioned.

So that's some reasons why having a helmet rule is indirect discrimination against women and should disqualify any club from Breeze and other publicly-funded equality-improving schemes. But it doesn't because BC and Sport England don't seem to have read and understood Cycling UK's briefings.

[Nearholmer]

If a person is going to be put off by the prospect of a helmet ruining their hairstyle, then they will equally be put off by the prospect of cycling along without a helmet in wind and rain, and in the case of off-road rides scrambling through the odd thicket, ruining their hairstyle.

It’s a red-herring point in the case of people who are interested in joining a club to go cycling for fresh air, exercise, and the allied social side of things. People out for fresh and exercise (and even indoor exercise come to that) take a bit sweat and untidiness as part and parcel of the activity.

[slowster]

Why have you chosen to refer to 'person' and 'people', rather than post the following?

If a woman is going to be put off by the prospect of a helmet ruining their hairstyle, then she will equally be put off by the prospect of cycling along without a helmet in wind and rain, and in the case of off-road rides scrambling through the odd thicket, ruining her hairstyle.

It’s a red-herring point in the case of women who are interested in joining a club to go cycling for fresh air, exercise, and the allied social side of things. Women out for fresh and exercise (and even indoor exercise come to that) take a bit sweat and untidiness as part and parcel of the activity.

[Nearholmer]

Because when I reread what MJR had posted, it mentioned in passing that men might be affected by the same issue.

and while those are not limited to women,

To me it makes complete sense that people might be put off cycling by the prospect of turning up at work, or a slightly formal social occassion, or a heap of other things for which utility cycling might be good for, by the prospect of their appearance becoming a tad dishevelled. It was sometimes a factor in my own decisions, especially in wet weather, about whether or not to cycle part of the trip when I was commuting to work.

What makes no sense to me at all, and in fact comes across as a bit sexist, is the idea that women who have decided they want to engage in “fresh air and exercise” cycling will suddenly pull away from that idea because a helmet might squash their hairdo.

[slowster]

Do you neverthless stand by this statement?

If a woman is going to be put off by the prospect of a helmet ruining their hairstyle, then she will equally be put off by the prospect of cycling along without a helmet in wind and rain, and in the case of off-road rides scrambling through the odd thicket, ruining her hairstyle.

It’s a red-herring point in the case of women who are interested in joining a club to go cycling for fresh air, exercise, and the allied social side of things. Women out for fresh and exercise (and even indoor exercise come to that) take a bit sweat and untidiness as part and parcel of the activity.

[Nearholmer]

I’ve lost the plot.

Did I write that, and then edit to “people and persons”, or did you edit what I’d written to create a hypothetical?

Either way , I’d say it’s a true statement, just as I’d say that the “people and persons” version is a true statement.

[slowster]

My point is that you are making some fairly sweeping assertions about women.

I don't accept that if a woman is deterred from cycling because she does not want her hair messed up by a helmet, it follows that 'cycling is not really for her' anyway, because she has to be prepared to get drenched, grubby, sweaty and dragged through a hedge backwards.

When I rode in a club there were women with voluminous hairstyles who did not wear helmets, and wind and rain were not a major problem for them: when it rained people wore hats. Nor was the rough-stuff riding a problem for those women, and I don't recall them looking sweaty or untidy.

If women are significantly disproportionately deterred from cycling and from joining a cycling club by the perception that they need to wear a helmet or a club requirement that they wear one, that needs to addressed. Otherwise they will continue to be under-represented.

[mjr]

If a person is going to be put off by the prospect of a helmet ruining their hairstyle, then they will equally be put off by the prospect of cycling along without a helmet in wind and rain,

That doesn't follow logically at all, and there's a big difference in damage from a bit of wind or rain and that from a half-pound of polystyrene.

[...]
It’s a red-herring point in the case of people who are interested in joining a club to go cycling for fresh air, exercise, and the allied social side of things. People out for fresh and exercise (and even indoor exercise come to that) take a bit sweat and untidiness as part and parcel of the activity.

I don't see sweat as a necessary part of cycling, most of the year. Probably because I ride without strapping wall insulation on my head. Why should a cycling club be limited to those happy to sweat, and isn't that obviously going to deter some parts of society from joining it?

[Nearholmer]

We are going round and round this circle because you seem to be using “cycling” to mean “the entire range of activities for which one might ride a bike” (or something very like that), while I am talking about a cycling club which is focused on what I’ve variously called “fresh air and exercise cycling” and “slightly sporty cycling” (I stopped using that phrase because ‘sporty’ got misinterpreted to mean ‘competitive sports’), in short, a club which is focused on a subset of what you seem to mean.

I get the impression, and you’ll doubtless correct me if I’m wrong, that you are very uncomfortable with the concept of clubs that focus on a subset of activity, regarding them as exclusive. In one semantic sense that is true, because they cater for people who want to focus on particular sorts of cycling. The one I am a member of doesn’t really do MTB for instance, because there is another local club devoted entirely to that, and it doesn’t do purely utility cycling at all, so might, at a very long stretch, be said to exclude those who aren’t interested in what it focuses on. I wouldn’t call that exclusive, to me a group that is exclusive is one that will only admit certain types of people …… an exclusion based on the characteristics of the person, rather than a focus based on the nature of the activity.

As I’ve said before, none of this is any different from a vast number of other particular-interest clubs. Our local angling club doesn’t cater for sea fishing; allotment societies tend not to cater for grand-design landscape gardening; the antique model railway collecting group that I belong to doesn’t cater for model-making in the modern oeuvre, or ship-modelling, or military-modelling; and, so it goes on.

TBH, I don’t think I know of a club which genuinely caters for the entire gamut of things one might do on a bike, they all seem to focus on subsets, and my instinct is that if one was to form with the intent of covering everything, it would rapidly form within itself special-interest subsections, because the needs, issues, factors that apply to different forms of cycling are different. One could for instance easily be put off cycling to a formal meeting at work for fear of arriving damp, dishevelled, and with messed-up hair (never put BJ off, of course, he seemed to use it as a signal that the concerns of mere mortals weren’t for him); if one has decided to go for a “fresh air and exercise/slightly sporty” bike ride the thought of finishing up a bit sweaty, and having sacrificed hairdo and makeup in the process isn’t going to put you off.

As a footnote, I think Mattheus’s accusation of exclusivity around the helmet rule gets closer to the bone, because it is true that some people do have a personal characteristic of either being physically unable to wear a standard-production helmet, and some have a personal characteristic of declining to wear a helmet for some other reason. They are excluded, although I’d be prepared to bet good money some way of accommodating the former would be found, and that some reasons for the latter (religious reasons for wearing a turban, for instance) would be accommodated. I think I might suggest that the concept of “reasonable accommodation” in those senses should get added to the rule-set.

[mattsccm]

Purely because something similar cropped up at work today, is it not discriminatory to have women only rides in the same way that is unacceptable to have , I dunno, vegetarian/ pierced ears/3 dog owning/ likes Neighbours only rides?
Just playing devils advocate.
Oh yeah. I agree with Nearholmer . Subsets are inevitable and to my mind desirable. You get what you want with no messing about with anything you don't want.
I would like a very exclusive group that organises club rides made up of riders mostly just stronger than me to get me home absolutely knackered but not dropped at the first hill. There must be one rider who sees me in that role as well.

[Nearholmer]

is it not discriminatory to have women only rides

In this context, “discriminatory” usually means something roughly like “unjust or prejudicial”, something that unfairly, or unreasonably disadvantages someone.

Personally, I can’t see that anyone whatsoever is disadvantaged by having women-only rides if they are within the context of a club where all but the women-only rides are open to everyone.

So, what about men only rides then? Probably again not disadvantaging anyone, so not discriminatory, in the context of a club where all but those rides (and the women-only rides if there are any) are open to everyone. What I can’t see is a logical case to initiate men-only rides as a means to increase participation, because, so far as I have ever heard, men have never felt intimidated by women, and thereby deterred from participation, in the way that women definitely have sometimes felt intimidated by men. It’s theoretically possible I suppose, but really hard to imagine as a reality.

Anecdotal footnote: I have come across very definite and deliberate intimidation of men by women years back. On the railways, the vast majority of carriage cleaners were women, and they operated in tight-knit gangs. They took immense delight in frightening young male workers witless using all sorts of tricks and ambushes, the more humiliating the better. Any bloke who worked on the railways before about the mid-1980s will turn ashen if you mention carriage cleaners to him.

[mjr]

I get the impression, and you’ll doubtless correct me if I’m wrong, that you are very uncomfortable with the concept of clubs that focus on a subset of activity, regarding them as exclusive.

Yeah, that's wrong. I'm quite comfortable with there being sports cycling clubs, but I'm very uncomfortable with them bogarting a load of public funding intended for broadening cycling to more types of people. They aren't broadening it. They're just making the same narrow niches deeper. Some can't broaden it because focusing on sport-style cycling is part of their core set-up. It's fine for them to focus on it, but it's not fine for them to take money intended for broadening reach without actually widening their focus. It's fine for BC clubs to focus only on sport cycling or to take outreach funding, but they should have to choose one or the other.

I wouldn’t call that exclusive, to me a group that is exclusive is one that will only admit certain types of people …… an exclusion based on the characteristics of the person, rather than a focus based on the nature of the activity.

The nature of the activity can result in discouraging participation based on the characteristics of the person. That's a key part of the problem.

As I’ve said before, none of this is any different from a vast number of other particular-interest clubs. Our local angling club doesn’t cater for sea fishing; allotment societies tend not to cater for grand-design landscape gardening; the antique model railway collecting group that I belong to doesn’t cater for model-making in the modern oeuvre, or ship-modelling, or military-modelling; and, so it goes on.

I'm not aware of any of those taking millions of pounds of public money to get a more representative demographic fishing, gardening, modelling or so on, and then only offering a specific type of that activity which has been shown to be less attractive to the under-represented. That's what makes this different.

[...] I think I might suggest that the concept of “reasonable accommodation” in those senses should get added to the rule-set.

It's a bit surprising if it isn't already, so that would be good. Thank you.