What’s stopping women cycling?

[airborneal]

The idea that the only reason why more women don't cycle must be because they don't want to does demonstrate a startling lack of imagination, but it is interesting that people who hold that view seem to feel the need to say it over and over again. Almost as if they would prefer it if the subject didn't get discussed at all.

Hint: there's more than one meaning of the word 'argument'.


You don't get why it's an issue. We wonder why it is that more of us are not choosing to cycle, and whether there are things putting those women off that could be addressed. You are quite welcome to discuss why men don't go to spin classes (although I believe they do in huge numbers) but not here please, as this is a discussion about women and cycling.

I know there is more than one meaning to the word argument but from the way you reply to any others posts I assumed you wanted to turn it into a heated argument. Apologies if I have missed it [there's a lot of pages here] but have you actually put any theories forward or just slated others.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I thought that the point of the article in the OP was that despite increasing numbers of cyclists, there are vastly more male cyclists than female cyclists? So even though there might be more women than there were before, they are still not represented proportionately to the gender split of the general population.

The linked article seems more directed at listing the quoted reasons for not cycling than looking at percentages, though it does cite 50% more regular cycling activity for men than women, i.e. 66/33%. My feeling is that the more cycling becomes normalised the more that proportion will move closer to a balance.

 

[Fab Foodie]

If I remember correctly there was a period in which girls and young women aspired to look strong, lean, and muscled like Madonna? What happened to that idea I wonder? Role models now seem, at not much more than a glance admittedly, to be rather thin and soft by comparison.

I don't know. Davina McC has been leading a fresh charge recently for the ripped look and there is apparently interest in 'Bikini Body' fitness and competitions. Who are women's or young women's role models these days? Many RnB pop stars for example are not exactly sylphs or shrinking violets waifs that's for sure and they sure ain't short of 'Girl Power'....

 

[Fab Foodie]

The linked article seems more directed at listing the quoted reasons for not cycling than looking at percentages, though it does cite 50% more regular cycling activity for men than women, i.e. 66/33%. My feeling is that the more cycling becomes normalised the more that proportion will move closer to a balance.

I think there's some truth in this. Women might just lag behind the men's growth curve.

 

[FishFright]

Not entirely off topic ...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/oh-just-fk-off-say-women-20180125143116

 

[User10119]

The linked article seems more directed at listing the quoted reasons for not cycling than looking at percentages, though it does cite 50% more regular cycling activity for men than women, i.e. 66/33%. My feeling is that the more cycling becomes normalised the more that proportion will move closer to a balance.

In the style of the Danes/Dutch? Actually that makes sense.

If cycling is for the sporty and competitive, or seen as the domain of brave road warriors, or singles you out as "other" and thus makes another reason for you to be more susceptible to verbal/physical abuse, or puts you in situations where you are alone/isolated and perhaps more vulnerable to (predominantly male) violence then I think that many people generally will be put off and women are likely to be disproportionately so, for a number of reasons (including the ones that I've posted above, and above, and above).

If riding a bike is just kind of what everybody does, and how you get around, and is seen as safe and normal, and "why on earth would I need special clothes or equipment?", and the family bike is a popular choice on the school run and so on - then it seems feasible that the (dis)proportions would likely change and the vicar and his/her husband/wife* would get back on their bikes once more.


*I actually have a lovely mate who is a cycling vicar - did LEL. Dunno if he's on here. His even lovelier wife (sorry G, but you know I'm right) is also a cyclist.

 

[User10119]

Not entirely off topic ...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/oh-just-fk-off-say-women-20180125143116

That made me snort with laughter. Deeply unattractively, natch.

 

[User6179]

The linked article seems more directed at listing the quoted reasons for not cycling than looking at percentages, though it does cite 50% more regular cycling activity for men than women, i.e. 66/33%. My feeling is that the more cycling becomes normalised the more that proportion will move closer to a balance.

is 50% more not 60/40% ? 66/33% not 100% more?

 

[Julia9054]

If I remember correctly there was a period in which girls and young women aspired to look strong, lean, and muscled like Madonna? What happened to that idea I wonder? Role models now seem, at not much more than a glance admittedly, to be rather thin and soft by comparison.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...skinny-for-young-women?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Read this recently - how well it relates to real life I don't know.

 

[Julia9054]

[QUOTE 5128781, member: 9609"]I'm in no doubt nurture plays a big part, but is it bigger than nature; Where would you put the Nurture / Nature balance ?
I would easily put it at 80/20 in favour of Nature. we can certainly be influenced but we are who we are no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Based on what? Since nature and nurture cannot be scientifically disentangled it is a completely unhelpful side track and gets us nowhere in the discussion around why lower numbers of women cycle

 

[User10119]

[QUOTE 5128781, member: 9609"]I'm in no doubt nurture plays a big part, but is it bigger than nature; Where would you put the Nurture / Nature balance ?
I would easily put it at 80/20 in favour of Nature. we can certainly be influenced but we are who we are no matter what.[/QUOTE]

I think testosterone and chromosones and dangly bits and gonads are remarkably convenient excuses for failing to address systemic inequalities and discrimination on the basis of gender and reassuringly supportive of the status quo.

And I'll suggest once more, just in case, looking at the previously linked stuff from that documentary about the way we treat babies differently depending on what gender we perceive them to be, and maybe seeing if you can find the documentary series somewhere because it was remarkably accessible and very interesting about all sorts of stuff to do with child development and gender.

You can prefer to believe it is down to the content of people's underpants - you are of course entitled to your opinion. But we very definitely treat children very very differently (even when we think we don't - see the aforementioned clip) according to gender and it starts when they are tiny. Babes-in-arms.

In a matter of months, the teacher/school/documentary makers were able to actually and significantly affect outcomes by addressing that problem and treating children in a less gendered manner and more equally. Girls learned that they could be strong, improved their spatial awareness and discovered that attractiveness wasn't actually the most important thing about them. Boys discovered that empathy is rewarding and how to experience and express emotions other than anger. Parents who didn't think they were sexist reflected on some of the millions of tiny ways that we and the world discriminates on the basis of gender without even noticing. The teacher just about learned to stop calling the boys 'mate', 'pal', 'buddy' and the girls 'sweetheart' and 'lovely' - although it took a reward chart with stickers awarded to him by his pupils to just about break the habit. They saw a difference - in just a few weeks. So even in there is a degree of Nature in the mix, we need to sort out the Nurture and tedious arguing about percentages is in this case, frankly, a remarkably tedious sidetrack, IMO.

ETA - TMN to @Julia9054 who was much less verbose than me!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

is 50% more not 60/40% ? 66/33% not 100% more?

The exact same question occurred to me as I cycled to the kebab shop earlier. I do believe you're right

 

[Inertia]

[QUOTE 5128818, member: 10119"]I think testosterone and chromosones and dangly bits and gonads are remarkably convenient excuses for failing to address systemic inequalities and discrimination on the basis of gender and reassuringly supportive of the status quo.

And I'll suggest once more, just in case, looking at the previously linked stuff from that documentary about the way we treat babies differently depending on what gender we perceive them to be, and maybe seeing if you can find the documentary series somewhere because it was remarkably accessible and very interesting about all sorts of stuff to do with child development and gender.

You can prefer to believe it is down to the content of people's underpants - you are of course entitled to your opinion. But we very definitely treat children very very differently (even when we think we don't - see the aforementioned clip) according to gender and it starts when they are tiny. Babes-in-arms.

In a matter of months, the teacher/school/documentary makers were able to actually and significantly affect outcomes by addressing that problem and treating children in a less gendered manner and more equally. Girls learned that they could be strong, improved their spatial awareness and discovered that attractiveness wasn't actually the most important thing about them. Boys discovered that empathy is rewarding and how to experience and express emotions other than anger. Parents who didn't think they were sexist reflected on some of the millions of tiny ways that we and the world discriminates on the basis of gender without even noticing. The teacher just about learned to stop calling the boys 'mate', 'pal', 'buddy' and the girls 'sweetheart' and 'lovely' - although it took a reward chart with stickers awarded to him by his pupils to just about break the habit. They saw a difference - in just a few weeks. So even in there is a degree of Nature in the mix, we need to sort out the Nurture and tedious arguing about percentages is in this case, frankly, a remarkably tedious sidetrack, IMO.

ETA - TMN to @Julia9054 who was much less verbose than me![/QUOTE]
You make verbose sound like a bad thing. I think it was worth the extra photons.

 

[User10119]

[QUOTE 5128899, member: 9609"]I was only but answering the reply made to me, the side track was not mine - may be you should address your complaint to the other poster for heading off topic.[/quote]

Who, l'il ol' me? But I was simply replying to you, which was probably quite obvious since I quoted the bit that I was responding to
[QUOTE 5128310, member: 9609"]without suggesting women can't be as brave as men, they certainly can be - In general women don't seem to take the risks men are willing to take ? probably something to do with our slightly different psychological characteristics, testosterone levels ?[/QUOTE]

The thing is, saying "it's down to testosterone" or "it's because of our evolutionary need to hunt" or "dangly bits" or "because they just don't want to because they are women and women are different" implies that it can't be changed. The social and cultural causes of disparities can be changed if we identify, acknowledge and address them.

I suspect the acceptable answers to the thread will revolve around men behaving badly, even though there is no difference between men and women ? or is it any differences are solely down to incorrect upbringings ? so is the answer down to a more gender neutral upbringing (which I alluded to very early on in the thread)

(my bold)
It isn't about 'acceptable answers' - there's nobody adjudicating and declaring a winner, after all. I just disagree with you, and am expressing my disagreement, as you are disagreeing with me and expressing your disagreement. If several, or even a lot, of people disagree with you and express that disagreement they aren't silencing you - they are just disagreeing with you.

personally I think the answer is far simpler - just make the roads safer - it could be just as simple as that. Are the roads safer for cycling in Denmark ?

Now here I think you are definitely onto something. For example, safer roads make it possible for mums to do the school run with the kids (and I work in 6 primary schools and can make the personal observation that although over the past 13 years there has been a noticeable increase in male{adj} parents/carers undertaking the task the vast majority of school-runners are female{adj}) on a bike and not in a chelsea tractor which then helps make the roads safer which then means.... etc etc etc. I'd certainly agree that is part of the solution.

 

[User10119]

A Swedish perspective on "gender mainstreaming" and specifically starting with how prioritising gender equality affected snow clearance policies that is, I think, kind of relevant.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/24/why-sweden-clears-walkways-before-roads/