Which leads me toNo. Because it was covered properly....
Are you sure it's only female cyclists?The Mail clearly has a beef with female cyclists.
I used to like listening to Woman's Hour, I'm currently boycotting R4 due to the constant Covid drivel at the beginning of the outbreak, it was full on scare tactics & not news.Which leads me to
wonder do folks really not comprehend the difference between covering a difficult to speak about subject, with care and sensitivity -
- the difference between that, and using it as sensationalised clickbait, with the kind of prurience, innuendo and lack of respect that is so often used by apers such as the dm.
Do people really not understand how difficult it is for many women to talk about this stuff, when they've been socialised not to mention such things for fear of being shamed if they speak up??
Or is it more that they really don't care,
so long as they can get a cheap laugh / make a woman feel uncomfortable?
Either way reading this -- some women who were already unsure will be put off cycling altogether, or avoid seeking help with any problems they do encounter because of unhelpful and juvenile attitudes.
I guess it's either a lack of empathy, and ability to understand what's appropriate in the context.
Or they just don't care.
I dunno, but it's both tiresome, and very unhelpful all at the same.
I noticed a typo where I should have said papers rather than 'apers' - but on reflection it seems apt.Are you sure it's only female cyclists?
I used to like listening to Woman's Hour, I'm currently boycotting R4 due to the constant Covid drivel at the beginning of the outbreak, it was full on scare tactics & not news.
However back to Woman's hour, as a man it highlights issues which I had never considered, but it seemed to me in a pretty balanced way, I've not read the DM version nor heard the WH version, but I suspect they are widely different.