An open letter to all condescending male chauvinist cyclists

[theclaud]

It is to you and me. But there are a lot of people who read "I'm not sure that" as "I'm not sure that".

I responded precisely because Cunobelin was talking to me like he was the chair of a panel game. The fact that his doing so is entirely predictable is more or less what this thread is about.

 

[jefmcg]

Calm down dear, it's only a bike ride

DON'T YOU EVER COMPLAIN ABOUT MAMIL AGAIN.

(sorry for shouting, but really)

 

[srw]

I responded precisely because Cunobelin was talking to me like he was the chair of a panel game. The fact that his doing so is entirely predictable is more or less what this thread is about.

Which is what I am clumsily trying to say.

I suspect that [expresses uncertainty] some people regularly read my attempts to express uncertainty as definitive statements.

 

[winjim]

Which is what I am clumsily trying to say.

I suspect that [expresses uncertainty] some people regularly read my attempts to express uncertainty as definitive statements.

I worry the other way. I worry that my expressions of uncertainty are taken as me being unsure of my position or as capitulation to an argument where the other side has expressed absolute certainty. Of course, in many discussions, a certain uncertainty is the only rational position to take. I'm certain of that.

 

[ufkacbln]

To be fair, you expressed uncertainty.

I suspect that @Cunobelin is wrong, because I suspect that bladder size is correlated closely and positively with body size. But clearly he's an expert so can cite the reference.

It is a generalisation, the average size will never cover all eventualities the important thing is that willpower is the greater factor



Beer drinkers tend to have large bladders, and so on

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 4765579, member: 9609"]I can only manage chin height, but the doctor said as long as you can get it over a farm gate you're OK.[/QUOTE]

I believe Prince Phillip is the highest Peer

 

[Profpointy]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-expects-praise-for-liking-women-20170413125995

Quite a pertinent article

 

[Spinney]

Came across this - who said that sexism was a thing of the past?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-from-five-years-of-everyday-sexism?CMP=fb_gu

 

[winjim]

Are you sure?

Under specified conditions and within well defined confidence limits, maybe.

 

[jefmcg]

People, people ....

turned into a bit of a pissing

winning at the pissing

Without a penis, too...

selling off-brand shewees.

next pissing contest

I thought a pissing competition was measured by distance rather than volume

What is more the point is how long you can "hold it in"

I believe Prince Phillip is the highest Peer

etc etc. May I remind you of Shaun's wise words after the thread was locked because of a similar diversion?

Can we leave the washroom analogy behind and bring the thread back on topic please; which is generally about women cyclists having to deal with being patronised by male cyclists (in excess of their male cycling counterparts).

Thanks,
Shaun

 

[ufkacbln]

People, people ....















etc etc. May I remind you of Shaun's wise words after the thread was locked because of a similar diversion?

You mean Shaun might think we are taking the pi$$?

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 4764978, member: 43827"]McWobble. I salute your continued virtue signalling pomposity, and repeat, in my last post on this topic, for those who suffer a comprehension deficit:

1. I believe it is wrong for men to patronise women
2. I think women have every right to complain about being patronised by men
3. I have not complained about being condescended to
4. If I gave Pat"5mph" the impression that I trivialised her feelings then I apologise to her, and not because I'm afraid of being hit by a flying pump. Her posts have probably been the most balanced comments in the thread.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your ad hominem. Odd that you complain about User when he does it to you...

I'm not talking you agreeing that it's wrong for men to patronise women. I'm talking about you repeatedly trivialising it. Something you've avoided addressing. Because the one thing that this thread did not need, when discussing the ways women are put down by some men, a story from you about how you've been patronised.

There's probably even an interesting point to be made there: it had crossed my mind to add some such banal story myself before realising just how inappropriate it was. An illustration of just how ingrained such attitudes are in society, perhaps. And how it sometimes requires the application of thought not to succumb to this old habit. But that would be wasted on you, wouldn't it?

As an aside:
[QUOTE 4764978, member: 43827"]
3. I have not complained about being condescended to[/QUOTE]
Oh really?
[QUOTE 4762851, member: 43827"]



Care to explain without the condescending sigh?[/QUOTE]

HTH

 

[growingvegetables]

[QUOTE 4766984, member: 43827"]Sorry everyone but it's my stalker's fault.[/QUOTE]
Nope!

 

[slowmotion]

To be fair, you expressed uncertainty.

I suspect that @Cunobelin is wrong, because I suspect that bladder size is correlated closely and positively with body size. But clearly he's an expert so can cite the reference.

Piss about with the formulae in this article.....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04053.x/full

 

[ufkacbln]

I responded precisely because Cunobelin was talking to me like he was the chair of a panel game. The fact that his doing so is entirely predictable is more or less what this thread is about.

The thread is about the opposite, but it is true that perfectly reasonable replies adding detail to a series of posts are being misinterpreted

If this was a thread about tyres and you had said that you were uncertain about tyre size, then the usual and polite answer is to expand on that point with further detail. Had you said you were been uncertain about chain compatibility , expanding upon that would normally be an acceptable thing to do.

I had not realised this had changed.

By stating uncertainty on a subject you are inviting a reply and as a result the advice given is solicited

This thread is about exactly the opposite, unsolicited advice.