"Granny gear" and sexism

[slowmotion]

What people call a sprocket with a few teeth doesn't matter. I'm just interested in the idea that people with trivial grievances should be right royally entertained.
There's plenty more stuff to get concerned about.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

What people call a sprocket with a few teeth doesn't matter. I'm just interested in the idea that people with trivial grievances should be right royally entertained.
There's plenty more stuff to get concerned about.

But it does matter imo.
Words are powerful.
The op was not a grievance, it was an invitation to reflect on a term commonly used in cycling; we are a forum of cyclists, no?
I wasn't before, but now I'm interested in the origins of the term.
Some words are intuitively offensive to me: example, I never liked "mamil", "sit up and beg bike" or "BSO"
Granny gear, after spending a bit thinking about it, could grow distasteful (to me) but I still need to pinpoint the reason.
Sure, there is more pressing stuff to be concerned about in the big picture of life, but one is still allowed to reflect about the wee stuff, don't you think?

 

[classic33]

You do realise that it’s called a dinner plate because those who use them eat too much and so need an easier gear to get up the same hills they needed a harder gear for previously.

I find that highly offensive and may give up cycling as a result.

Thought it was the "Dinner Plate" due to being oversize. "Grandpa Ring" relates to the largest on the rear block.

 

[User16625]

So you are saying associating physical things that are easier to do with women/old people, isn't sexist/ageist?

Correct. Or at least a lot of stuff is taken way too seriously. Fact is men and women do have different attributes and therefore not equal. This doesnt make women inferior. Im sure if I said something like "flowers are girly, football is manly", someone will end up being offended which is pathetic. It is kind of true, a higher proportion of women love flowers, and a high proportion of men (higher than women) like football. To say it tho, thats sexist, yet they cant even play against each other officially. What if each team had a set number of women and men in them?

Also cooking really is a woman's job, because look what happens when it's left to a man* (OK that is a joke)

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

But it does matter imo.
Words are powerful.
The op was not a grievance, it was an invitation to reflect on a term commonly used in cycling; we are a forum of cyclists, no?
I wasn't before, but now I'm interested in the origins of the term.
Some words are intuitively offensive to me: example, I never liked "mamil", "sit up and beg bike" or "BSO"

I don't see why any of those three terms should bother you, although the last one does often get misused.
"MAMIL" describes the ridiculous sight of (usually visibly overweight) middle age blokes who are generally on an expensive and fancy looking road bike and are trying to kid themselves they are still a fit 25 year old athlete, when in reality they look more like a jelly with legs sticking out the bottom. As a bloke, I probably laugh at them even more than most women do, and the ridicule is fully deserved, IMHO.
"The term "sit up and beg" has been in use forever, and describes the upright riding position of a traditional roadster. I use the term, my mum used to use it, everyone knows exactly what it refers to. Why would anyone have a problem with such a description? It isn't even gender-specific!
"BSO", when used correctly, accurately describes the sort of cheap junk bike which is so badly made as to be unuseable, or doesn't remain functional for long. Cycling snobs unfortunately misuse the term, and use BSO to refer to any cheaper bike than the one they ride, which brings it into disrepute. I own certain bikes that some on here would regard as BSO's, even though all my bikes are fully capable of being used reliably if maintained, but their "crime" is they cost less than a weeks' wages new, rather than a month or more of wages. I don't care if a snob thinks my skip-salvage Apollo MTB is a BSO, I know it isn't because whenever I ride it, it always gets me to my destination in working order.

I'm also interested in the origins of various phrases in common use, but unlike those militant feminist types who go looking for "sexism" and any other sort of "ism" in everything they see, hear, or read, I don't want to start a campaign to try to stop anyone else using whatever term they choose. If a few Snowflake types get offended by any phrases I use, that's their problem to deal with. not mine. I won't be changing any of my use of the English language just because some "professional offendees" think I'm sexist/racist/size-ist/ageist etc. They need to get a life and find something that's actually important enough to worry about, like some third-world religious nut-job country managing to get hold of a viable nuclear missile.

 

[swansonj]

I think the point is that were over analysing absolutely everything to the nth degree these days and wasting time on stuff that people genuinely don’t find offensive.

Personally, I have never used the term, although I do think it’s a daft thing to get work nd up about.

Being asked to think about such things isn’t the issue. I do enjoy discussing stuff that questions the norm and resolves things that should never have been.

Is this one of those things? I doubt it. That’s my assumption based on the fact that nobody has yet stated that they have taken offence to the term. Perhaos it would be useful for anyone who does to post that here, so we have a better idea on how much of an issue this really is?

Just for the record, whilst I am unashamed at having started this thread, I did so, not out of blue because I am on a mission to convert everyone, but to stop another interesting thread getting derailed. And the subject came up there because someone in one and the same post claimed they didn't have a sexist bone in their body, then talked about granny gears.

Also and far more importantly, you and many others have mischaracterised the objections to the term as being about people being offended. As I tried (I deludedly thought fairly clearly and patiently) to explain in the OP and subsequently, it's not, or not principally. It's about perpetuating a set of assumptions about how cycling ought to be experienced.

The fish to be played for here is whether someone newish to cycling goes into a bike shop and comes out with a bike that:

(a) has sport-derived gears (and geometry and saddle...) so that every hill becomes a struggle, cycling becomes perceived as not really fun but the preserve of fit people preferably with a dose of masochism, the bike gets used less, and another putative convert is lost to our wonderful activity; or

(b) has nice low gears, such that hills can be taken at a pootle without getting completely sweaty, carrying shopping loads seems perfectly feasible, longer distances don't loom as a challenge, and the whole cycling experience seems, you know, fun rather than a sport.

Does how we talk about something affect how we perceive it? Of course it flipping does. It's called marketing.

 

[Vantage]

"MAMIL" describes the ridiculous sight of (usually visibly overweight) middle age blokes who are generally on an expensive and fancy looking road bike and are trying to kid themselves they are still a fit 25 year old athlete, when in reality they look more like a jelly with legs sticking out the bottom. As a bloke, I probably laugh at them even more than most women do, and the ridicule is fully deserved, IMHO.

Why is the ridicule deserved?
No one wears lycra for its awesome fashion status. It's for comfort and/or performance.
It doesn't flap around in the wind, doesn't quadruple in weight when wet and dries quickly. For cycling, it's perfect.
From what I've seen, the majority of these mamils are damn strong cyclists.

 

[screenman]

Why is the ridicule deserved?
No one wears lycra for its awesome fashion status. It's for comfort and/or performance.
It doesn't flap around in the wind, doesn't quadruple in weight when wet and dries quickly. For cycling, it's perfect.
From what I've seen, the majority of these mamils are damn strong cyclists.

Yeh! But they spend money and that is frowned upon by some of seems.

Full Lycra on every ride for me.

 

[Julia9054]

Yeh! But they spend money and that is frowned upon by some of seems.

Full Lycra on every ride for me.

No, you are doing it wrong. If you are not 25 and - heaven forbid - if you are a bit overweight, you should know your place, wear a baggy t shirt and ride an old, cheap bike. Hide yourself away for gawd sake or Skipdiver John will laugh at you.

 

[smutchin]

I find this thread quite reassuring. As long as there are so many people willing to fight the noble cause of the granny ring, our children will be able to sleep soundly at night without fearing the militant feminists under the bed.

 

[Julia9054]

I find this thread quite reassuring. As long as there are so many people willing to fight the noble cause of the granny ring, our children will be able to sleep soundly at night without fearing the militant feminists under the bed.

I love that a few people going "Never thought of that - i suppose it could be a bit sexist" on an internet forum can terrorise people's children so effectively

 

[winjim]

I don't see why any of those three terms should bother you, although the last one does often get misused.
"MAMIL" describes the ridiculous sight of (usually visibly overweight) middle age blokes who are generally on an expensive and fancy looking road bike and are trying to kid themselves they are still a fit 25 year old athlete, when in reality they look more like a jelly with legs sticking out the bottom. As a bloke, I probably laugh at them even more than most women do, and the ridicule is fully deserved, IMHO.
"The term "sit up and beg" has been in use forever, and describes the upright riding position of a traditional roadster. I use the term, my mum used to use it, everyone knows exactly what it refers to. Why would anyone have a problem with such a description? It isn't even gender-specific!
"BSO", when used correctly, accurately describes the sort of cheap junk bike which is so badly made as to be unuseable, or doesn't remain functional for long. Cycling snobs unfortunately misuse the term, and use BSO to refer to any cheaper bike than the one they ride, which brings it into disrepute. I own certain bikes that some on here would regard as BSO's, even though all my bikes are fully capable of being used reliably if maintained, but their "crime" is they cost less than a weeks' wages new, rather than a month or more of wages. I don't care if a snob thinks my skip-salvage Apollo MTB is a BSO, I know it isn't because whenever I ride it, it always gets me to my destination in working order.

I'm also interested in the origins of various phrases in common use, but unlike those militant feminist types who go looking for "sexism" and any other sort of "ism" in everything they see, hear, or read, I don't want to start a campaign to try to stop anyone else using whatever term they choose. If a few Snowflake types get offended by any phrases I use, that's their problem to deal with. not mine. I won't be changing any of my use of the English language just because some "professional offendees" think I'm sexist/racist/size-ist/ageist etc. They need to get a life and find something that's actually important enough to worry about, like some third-world religious nut-job country managing to get hold of a viable nuclear missile.

This entire post is pretty good, but that second paragraph is incredible. Truly a thing of beauty, I might print it out and stick it on my fridge.

 

[gbb]

Yes, please post here so you can be ridiculed like your concerns have been(!)

Useful for who?

It' be extremely useful if someone actually said they found it offensive...i dont mean theoretically offensive but that it definitively had a sexist basis. Perhaps then the whole discussion could be taken seriously.
I' m a less than perfect human being and carry with me some unfortunate habits for want of a better word . I'm a good human being but have modified some of my less fortunate traits, many of them as a result of reading posts like these. But this isn't one that's going to change anything In me, it's a non starter, has no basis...thats been shown to me anyway.
Discuss ?...perfectly fine, but the trouble is some in here will knee nerk accuse you of being a covert, even overt racist/sexist/ageist, if you don't agree.(discussions of this nature in general)
They do themselves an immense disservice when that happens.

 

[Julia9054]

It' be extremely useful if someone actually said they found it offensive...i dont mean theoretically offensive but that it definitively had a sexist basis. Perhaps then the whole discussion could be taken seriously.

Does someone have to find something personally offensive (or offensive on behalf of another group) to acknowledge that an expression is sexist and ageist in origin (for what else could it be?)
I am not reading massive amounts of outrage - well, not against the use of the phrase anyway - nor am I reading calls for the phrase to be banned.

 

[Julia9054]

Discuss ?...perfectly fine, but the trouble is some in here will knee nerk accuse you of being a covert, even overt racist/sexist/ageist, if you don't agree.(discussions of this nature in general)

I am not reading any of that either. Just a small amount of ridicule against those who are suggesting that anyone discussing it must be a ridiculous militant feminist!