Women only club rides

[mjr]

Different cycling clubs have different foci, just as different gardening clubs do, and different angling societies, and ….,, I could go on.

Some are what might be called “cycling for all, for utility and leisure, advocacy groups”, some are old-style CTC oriented, some are overtly, and to varying degrees, sporty, they are exercise and fitness focused, even if that doesn’t mean competitive sport.

Railing at somewhat sporty clubs for being somewhat sporty, rather than somewhat advocacy-focused, is as much a waste of breath as moaning at the Trumpton Marrow Growers for not being into chrysanthemums.

I'm not railing at them for not being advocacy-focused, or even for being overtly sporty. In fact, I think I'd rather they left advocacy to the cycling campaigns and didn't muddy the waters with stuff like saying any old junk is OK as long as they can still ride on A roads, as their clubs often have.

I'm railing at them for a sham of inclusivity and equality when the Nietzschean superman ideal is still there deeply behind the mask, where going faster or riding a lighter less comfortable bike is 'progress', and us 'gimps and wobblies' (in the words of their former national team manager) are labelled 'beginners' or 'improvers' or similar condescension and flat-out blanked if you turn up to watch a race. All while the national body is hoovering up gobs of lottery grants to be more inclusive and failing to address their pale male stale clubs.

[mattheus]

I'm railing at them for a sham of inclusivity and equality when the Nitzschean superman ideal is still there deeply behind the mask, where going faster or riding a lighter less comfortable bike is 'progress', and us 'gimps and wobblies' (in the words of their former national team manager) are labelled 'beginners' or 'improvers' or similar condescension and flat-out blanked if you turn up to watch a race. All while the national body is hoovering up gobs of lottery grants to be more inclusive and failing to address their pale male stale clubs.

Well said!

[PH]

All while the national body is hoovering up gobs of lottery grants to be more inclusive and failing to address their pale male stale clubs.

I don't recognise that description from the sporty clubs I see out and about, it certainly doesn't seem to describe the club Nearholmer is referring to.
Inclusivity in a cycling club isn't about the types of cycling it's involved with. My local CTC group has no intention of catering for those who wish to race.

[mattheus]

All while the national body is hoovering up gobs of lottery grants to be more inclusive and failing to address their pale male stale clubs.

I don't recognise that description from the sporty clubs I see out and about, it certainly doesn't seem to describe the club Nearholmer is referring to.
Inclusivity in a cycling club isn't about the types of cycling it's involved with. My local CTC group has no intention of catering for those who wish to race.

Are they not allowed on the group's rides?

[PH]

All while the national body is hoovering up gobs of lottery grants to be more inclusive and failing to address their pale male stale clubs.

I don't recognise that description from the sporty clubs I see out and about, it certainly doesn't seem to describe the club Nearholmer is referring to.
Inclusivity in a cycling club isn't about the types of cycling it's involved with. My local CTC group has no intention of catering for those who wish to race.

Are they not allowed on the group's rides?

That's the difference between inclusivity and exclusivity. They're not excluded, but neither are we planning our activities with the intention of including those things likely to appeal to them. It's like complaining that the local MTB club isn't catering for those who have road bikes. Or that Audax UK is only catering for those capable of riding long distances...

[mattheus]

I don't recognise that description from the sporty clubs I see out and about, it certainly doesn't seem to describe the club Nearholmer is referring to.
Inclusivity in a cycling club isn't about the types of cycling it's involved with. My local CTC group has no intention of catering for those who wish to race.

Are they not allowed on the group's rides?

That's the difference between inclusivity and exclusivity. They're not excluded, but neither are we planning our activities with the intention of including those things likely to appeal to them. It's like complaining that the local MTB club isn't catering for those who have road bikes.

Yes, they are indeed different.

My point is that many "sporty" clubs do not have rides that a wide range of folks CAN do. Your CTC group rides may not be racey, but a "racer" can join in. (In fact they might want to - for a recovery ride, or if injured, or to ride with their slower child/parent/spouse etc... )

[PH]

Yes, they are indeed different.
My point is that many "sporty" clubs do not have rides that a wide range of folks CAN do.

My point is, why would there be any expectation that they would?
They're a club, run by, or relying heavily, on volunteers. They can choose for themselves the activities they wish to provide and the membership they wish to cater for. If you impose the idea that because it's a cycling club, it ought to cater for everyone with a bike, that'll be the end of clubs.
Those sporty clubs I see out and about, and the club Nearholmer frequently refers to, do cater for a wide range of folks. I'm not one of them, but I don't have to be to recognise the fact, I can't fail to miss that there are a wide range of folks interested in sporty rides, probably a wider range than are interested in group leisure rides. We should be celebrating the choice, not criticising the differences.

[mattheus]

A bunch of mates that ride about the same speed; is that a "club"? Well, of course it CAN be, as there are no strict definitions!

But I like to think that cycling clubs can be more than that. I'm well aware that not everyone agrees ...

[mjr]

All while the national body is hoovering up gobs of lottery grants to be more inclusive and failing to address their pale male stale clubs.

I don't recognise that description from the sporty clubs I see out and about, it certainly doesn't seem to describe the club Nearholmer is referring to.
Inclusivity in a cycling club isn't about the types of cycling it's involved with. My local CTC group has no intention of catering for those who wish to race.

Pointing out how the club Nearholmer is referring to absolutely isn't inclusive has been removed by the mods once already, so I'll only point out the 'head-down/bum-up' logo and that there is no category for slow long-distance rides, rather than discuss the specific exclusionary rules.

I agree it's not about the type of cycling, necessarily. Most CTC groups don't seem particularly inclusive either. I thought that was one motive for the Community Cycle Clubs. But that's not wasted anything like the same amount of money or pretended it's improving existing CTC groups. That's why BC's effort is a special type of wrong.

[PH]

Pointing out how the club Nearholmer is referring to absolutely isn't inclusive has been removed by the mods once already, so I'll only point out the 'head-down/bum-up' logo and that there is no category for slow long-distance rides, rather than discuss the specific exclusionary rules.

Here's where we differ, I don't see why any club should have that obligation imposed on them. I don't see a problem with a head-down/bum-up club, anymore than the other examples I've given. Your stereotypical characterisation as pale male stale clubs isn't born out by my observations.
This is one of my local sporty clubs, plenty of talk about improving, reaching goals, etc... They haven't excluded me, but neither are they offering any of the cycling activities I'd want to participate in. What measure of success would you choose to use if not the number of participants enjoying what they provide? I doubt they'd recognise mattheus's idea that they're just a bunch of mates, or feel any obligation to cater for other interests.
https://www.cyclemickleover.co.uk/

[slowster]

Pointing out how the club Nearholmer is referring to absolutely isn't inclusive has been removed by the mods once already

No post has been removed by a moderator. The only post that has been removed was deleted by the poster, and that post did not point out 'how the club Nearholmer is referring to absolutely isn't inclusive', it was a rebuttal of your previous post.

[Nearholmer]

Some people like hard exercise, and form clubs to engage in it. Some people get a buzz out of trying to go as far, or as fast, or as uphill as they can on a bike, and they form clubs to do that.

Those things are facts of life.

Some people extend things a bit, and try to make access to the thing they enjoy doing as inclusive as they can, they want to spread their joy, by doing things like overtly encouraging women participants, participants of all and every race, creed and colour.

That’s how inclusive sporty cycling clubs emerge.

Some people think “hmmm …… not everybody who wants to get fresh air and exercise riding a bike either wants to become Mr or Mrs Fast, or necessarily wants to cycle in a chain-gang-like formation on the road, so let’s get some other sorts of rides going to cater for different tastes, “gravel”, and cycleway-only rides.”

Thats how a sporty cycling club gets even more inclusive, and actually gets a bit less sporty in the process.

And, those who participate have good fun, through a combination of things. The pure performance thing is top on the list for a tiny few, most get some satisfaction from doing the best they can, nearly everyone enjoys the cafe stops, some (thats me that is) couldn’t give a monkeys about the performance aspect, but quite enjoy bashing along muddy bridleways, and scrambling through hedges, in the company of like-minded idiots as a change from doing it alone.

All this Nietzchean superman stuff is purely between the ears of the beholder.

There is one aspect of the club Im a member of which might be considered exclusive: you have to wear a helmet on all club rides, and glasses on all off-road ones. That will offend some (it certainly has when I mentioned it before), but I merely state it as a fact.

[mattheus]

...<snippage>
There is one aspect of the club Im a member of which might be considered exclusive: you have to wear a helmet on all club rides, and glasses on all off-road ones. That will offend some (it certainly has when I mentioned it before), but I merely state it as a fact.

I'd only be offended if you said you've never challenged it. Reporting facts is fine!

You have challenged it

... right ... ?

[Nearholmer]

No, I haven’t, because I don’t think it’s a bad rule.

[mattheus]

No, I haven’t, because I don’t think it’s a bad rule.

Well you're wrong. And your club is mistaken in having the rule; it does nothing positive for cycling, and is a red flag for their members' attitudes towards other folk in general.