"Granny gear" and sexism

[swansonj]

....
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.
.....

It' be extremely useful if someone actually said they found it offensive ....

 

[Blue Hills]

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.

er me I presume.

So you have just said that it is definitely sexist. Insulting derogatory etc etc.

I had you down as a reasonable chap with some sort of particular thing about this but praps not.

May say more on this craziness if I have time over the next few days.

But not now - have to meet up with a nice cyclechat bod.

And luckily, maybe because I am lefty liberal with a few years on me and experiences.
Or a northerner.
Am innoculated against this sort of nonsense.

 

[PpPete]

Declaration of Interest: I'm a proud user of a triple - which has a very small "g***' ring".

I think we all have to accept that language changes. Spam means something different to what it did when i was a yoof, but I use it in its new meaning almost exclusively now. I no longer use the term g.......g referring to the image that used to appear on Robertson's jam, even though it was in common use, and not considered offensive, when I was a child. Standards change too. When I was in my teens Irish jokes were perfectly acceptable.

So if the term 'granny gear' is perceived by some as offensive, or detrimental to the enjoyment of cycling by those of limited leg-power, then I'll moderate my use of it. Can I guarantee to stop using it altogether overnight? No.

If people get offended because they see changes like that as political correctness gone mad, I rather pity them.
If a female grandparent hears the term slip inadvertently from my lips (probably when I'm labouring up a steep hill in said gear) and is offended; well I'm sorry but you need to get over yourself; language (and attitude) changes don't happen overnight.

 

[bpsmith]

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.

I have no issue about the theead being created. There’s nothing like a good discussion. I then asked for people to post if they find it offensive, to quantify how big an issue this is. I am still waiting on a single reply.

With respect to saddle fit, you have no idea it seems, based on what you think a new rider should have. It’s all about the size of your body. It could be that a race style saddle works, or one that’s more padded and endurance styled, but if it’s the wrong size then it just won’t work for you. My first saddle was leaning towards a racey style but was way too padded for my body and I bought a narrower one with less padding and it’s a lot more comfortable on long or short rides.

With respect to someone, male or female of any age, coming out of a bike shop with a bike that doesn’t suit their needs, the fault lies with the sales person and the buyer themselves. They should both ask the right questions and listen to the answers properly.

I know a number of people who bought their first bike that would fall in your Option A. They love the bike and cycling too, and are still doing so. I also know some in Option B with the same feeling too. As it happens, I know 2 that bought Option B and wish they had gone with Option A now, but none the other way around. Not suggesting it’s always that way, but only in my experience with the small sample of people I know.

You have to accept that either option is to be explored, despite you only posting the negatives for Option A and only the positives for Option B.

You also need to listen to other opinions, when you create a thread that includes the word “Discuss”, as do others, otherwise why bother?

 

[smutchin]

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.

Here's a simple test: is gender relevant to bicycle gearing? If not, using a gendered term to describe it is by definition sexist. Is the term offensive? No, not really, but then no one has claimed it is.

When the matter came up in my thoughts the other day (prompted by something I'd read but not here) I decided I would rather not use a gendered term where gender is irrelevant. Call me politically correct if you like, call me a militant feminist, label me with whatever lame Daily Mail cliché comes to mind, I can live with that.

 

[smutchin]

There’s nothing like a good discussion.

And this really is nothing like etc...

 

[Fab Foodie]

I’m going to call it the ‘happy-gear’ from now on... ‘cos I’m happy I have it!

 

[Fab Foodie]

And this really is nothing like etc...

You here all week perchance?

 

[smutchin]

You here all week perchance?

Have I ever told you about my mother-in-law?

 

[Julia9054]

I've always called it my Pateley Bridge chainring because if i lived there, I'd have to use it all the time

 

[bpsmith]

Here's a simple test: is gender relevant to bicycle gearing? If not, using a gendered term to describe it is by definition sexist. Is the term offensive? No, not really, but then no one has claimed it is.

So, is gender relevant to gearing? Do both genders, on average, push the same gears in the same scenarios?

The real question is whether the same can be asked of younger or older cyclists on average.

The points being made in this thread are about sexism, but nobody is discussing it being ageist when the reality is that it falls more in the latter than the former if we were to really define its place.

Personally, none of this affects me, as have never used the term despite being aware of it and it’s meaning. I just use the gear that I need for the occasion and that changes on the day too. I really don’t care what others use, as long as it gets them where they want to be in the manner in which they want to.

 

[gbb]

Here's a simple test: is gender relevant to bicycle gearing? If not, using a gendered term to describe it is by definition sexist. Is the term offensive? No, not really, but then no one has claimed it is.

When the matter came up in my thoughts the other day (prompted by something I'd read but not here) I decided I would rather not use a gendered term where gender is irrelevant. Call me politically correct if you like, call me a militant feminist, label me with whatever lame Daily Mail cliché comes to mind, I can live with that.

I concede I wrongly attributed the term offended. Ok, taking it as you say and trying to degenderise terminology...i take your point and respect that...but personally don't feel it's necessary for me to.
It's generally accepted terminology without (IMO and apparently many other too) negative meaning....thats good enough for me...even though it' a term I don't use anyway.

And one of my traits is a mild dislike of authority, being told what I can and can't do (I'm not suggesting anyone is...i just like to make up my own mind). There you go, laid myself bare again

 

[smutchin]

personally don't feel it's necessary for me to ... And one of my traits is a mild dislike of authority, being told what I can and can't do.

Just as well no one is asking you to change anything then.

 

[smutchin]

both genders

Both genders? DKUATB!

But to answer your question, I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where gender is relevant to choice of gearing.

 

[bpsmith]

Both genders? DKUATB!

But to answer your question, I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where gender is relevant to choice of gearing.

So you’re suggesting that, on average, people of any gender and any age should all use the same gear?