Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Audax => Topic started by: The French Tandem on 16 May, 2021, 03:41:43 pm

Title: Women-only audaxes
Post by: The French Tandem on 16 May, 2021, 03:41:43 pm
I'm not sure what is the exact motivation for this sort of things. Do women feel oppressed/discriminated/segregated during regular ACP or AUK events? My question is really a genuine question. As long as audax riders are only competing against themselves, I was assuming that audax was one of the few sports where men and women can participate together with no need for separate categories.

My feeling is that women only audax events are on the line of the recent fashion for black only / gay only / women only, etc., events of all kinds. To remain polite, I will just say that this is not my cup of tea.

One last little detail: the use of the word "nanas" in french for designating women is often patronizing and implies an emphasis on sexual attractiveness, probably equivalent to the use of "chicks" for women in english.

A

P.S.: Moderators, please feel free to delete my reply or move it to the POBI board if deemed inappropriate here.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 16 May, 2021, 06:28:17 pm
As a bloke, I won’t be riding the brevet or an analogue but quite a few women enjoy riding with women, so why not let them do it? There are plenty of other brevets that HK and I can ride together. I understand the brevet was proposed by an ACP woman, so I guess the name and concept was acceptable to her.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 16 May, 2021, 07:05:17 pm
I wonder why there is such a gender gap in cycling participation. I was at a triathlon today and it seemed  close to equal gender participation.

British tri membership is 32% female compared to 18% for British cycling. As triathlon generally involves cycling, why the difference ?  Most of the normal explanations for disparities should apply i would have thought.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Lightning Phil on 16 May, 2021, 07:13:53 pm
Part of inclusiveness is making it feel that people just like you are doing the things that you are considered doing.  So you can see yourself doing it.  So to bring more women into audax I think it can only be a good thing.

Look at what Liam did with London Wales London and Danial has done with LEL. Positive discrimination can bring about changes that will be slow to happen if you just always stick with the status quo ways of doing things.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 16 May, 2021, 07:53:03 pm
Female participation in tri comes from running and swimming which often have the reverse gender imbalance. It helps that a lot of "cyclists" have extremely sneery opinions about tri, otherwise I could see a lot more men coming in via cycling clubs.

The underlying problem with cycling is that clubs and events and culture are dominated by men, which puts off women (and others) either because they just don't see people like themselves or because of actual shitty and bore-ish behaviour*. If you put on female-only events you sidestep that.

(* no, not you, I'm sure you're a gentleman)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: The French Tandem on 16 May, 2021, 07:55:27 pm
Look at what Liam did with London Wales London and Danial has done with LEL. Positive discrimination can bring about changes that will be slow to happen if you just always stick with the status quo ways of doing things.

Dunno for LWL. Is there a women-only category in LEL now? As far as I know, LEL is open to anyone willing to ride a bike for 1500 km, irrespective of gender.

A
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 16 May, 2021, 08:00:46 pm
There was a percentage of LEL entries prioritised for certain groups, including women.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: The French Tandem on 16 May, 2021, 08:50:12 pm
There was a percentage of LEL entries prioritised for certain groups, including women.

I'm not against that, but let's admit that allowing, say, 10% of entries to a certain group is one thing, and allowing 100% of entries to that same group is another thing! 
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mzjo on 16 May, 2021, 09:22:45 pm
Does this have any connection to or motivation from the FFCT's "Toute à Vélo" action which was held in june I believe but is now in september? Although the weakness in the FFCT action to me has always been that it is restricted to FFCT members when there are sufficiently few women active in the clubs that they really reach out to all the ones outside. A bit like saying "look what we'r" doing!" and following that with "but you're not one of us so you can't join in". (Same negative thinking that goes with a lot of the encouraging of non-cyclists to join in and become cyclists generally, but the FFCT is particularly bad at this - Off post I'm sorry and others are not obliged to agree!)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: fboab on 16 May, 2021, 09:34:23 pm
I'm not sure what is the exact motivation for this sort of things. Do women feel oppressed/discriminated/segregated during regular ACP or AUK events? My question is really a genuine question. As long as audax riders are only competing against themselves, I was assuming that audax was one of the few sports where men and women can participate together with no need for separate categories.

My feeling is that women only audax events are on the line of the recent fashion for black only / gay only / women only, etc., events of all kinds. To remain polite, I will just say that this is not my cup of tea.
<snip>

Patronised, ignored. It's not about permission, or competition. Inclusivity shouldn't be considered fashion- that's very much from the viewpoint of a white male.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 16 May, 2021, 09:51:54 pm
Female participation in tri comes from running and swimming which often have the reverse gender imbalance. It helps that a lot of "cyclists" have extremely sneery opinions about tri, otherwise I could see a lot more men coming in via cycling clubs.

The underlying problem with cycling is that clubs and events and culture are dominated by men, which puts off women (and others) either because they just don't see people like themselves or because of actual shitty and bore-ish behaviour*. If you put on female-only events you sidestep that.

(* no, not you, I'm sure you're a gentleman)
Many triathlons have gender (and age) segregated start waves, perhaps that is part of it.

I think the nature of the event is quite a leveller. If you are the best cyclist you are probably not the best swimmer or runner and in fact the winner might not be the best at any one discipline. In fact most people are coming into it from being good a one of the three and so have a lot to learn in the other two.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 16 May, 2021, 10:36:25 pm
I'm not sure what is the exact motivation for this sort of things. Do women feel oppressed/discriminated/segregated during regular ACP or AUK events? My question is really a genuine question.

Yes.

Quote
As long as audax riders are only competing against themselves, I was assuming that audax was one of the few sports where men and women can participate together with no need for separate categories.

There's more to the experience than simply everyone riding the same route...

Quote

My feeling is that women only audax events are on the line of the recent fashion for black only / gay only / women only, etc., events of all kinds. To remain polite, I will just say that this is not my cup of tea.

I'm guessing you're a straight white able bodied man?

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: The French Tandem on 17 May, 2021, 07:18:00 am
I'm not sure what is the exact motivation for this sort of things. Do women feel oppressed/discriminated/segregated during regular ACP or AUK events? My question is really a genuine question. As long as audax riders are only competing against themselves, I was assuming that audax was one of the few sports where men and women can participate together with no need for separate categories.

My feeling is that women only audax events are on the line of the recent fashion for black only / gay only / women only, etc., events of all kinds. To remain polite, I will just say that this is not my cup of tea.
<snip>

Patronised, ignored. It's not about permission, or competition. Inclusivity shouldn't be considered fashion- that's very much from the viewpoint of a white male.

My view is that the hidden message behind women-only events is "You are not good enough to enter a regular event, so we'll do something special for you".  This is for me the very definition of "patronising", and this is why I am not fond of segregated events. If some people, white males or others, have a poor behavior during an event, it is these offenders that should be excluded from the event, not their victims.

I remember that some years ago, there was a discussion on this forum about a possible change in AUK rules for allowing separate male/female classifications, or different rules for women. Most posters, including many women, were clearly opposed to that. Maybe times have changed :)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: The French Tandem on 17 May, 2021, 07:35:06 am
I'm not sure what is the exact motivation for this sort of things. Do women feel oppressed/discriminated/segregated during regular ACP or AUK events? My question is really a genuine question.

Yes.


Then, as I said above, let's take strong measures against the offenders, rather than segregate the offended people.


I'm guessing you're a straight white able bodied man?

Short answer: Yes. But let me tell you one thing. By asking this question, you are being very divisive. Have I ever made any comment on this forum regarding your possible belonging to one group or another? Certainly not. Let's face it, you and me are just people, basic plain people who have the same hopes for a happy and peaceful life. You will not make the world a better place by building divisions between people.

Cheers!
A
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: fboab on 17 May, 2021, 08:22:14 am
 :facepalm:

https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-navigate-your-own-privilege-5076057
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 17 May, 2021, 09:56:21 am
Triathlon, while possibly not as inclusive as it can be (although I've competed in the same event as blind athletes, I have yet to participate in an event with anyone who requires, e.g., a handcycle), is a remarkably inclusive sport. Races are segregated by how fast you are in the swim. That's it. If you can do 750m in 15 minutes, you will start with a bunch of other people who do the 750m in about 15 minutes. The majority of amateur races are non-drafting, so there's no requirement for the kind of bike skills you can only learn by being in a club (I was not permitted to join the clubs I approached as I only have one eye). On exiting the swim, it is normal for spectators (most triathletes have friends or family along) to cheer loudly for every competitor. It's a race, but it really is about participation. It's normal for triathletes who are unable to compete for injury reasons to marshal on races. There is no body shaming, which is a huge plus point in the sport's favour -- you look at televised sports and see whip-thin athletes running insane speeds, and then you go to an amateur event and see every body shape under the sun just getting round the best they can. There are events specifically targeted at beginners (I once saw some first time racers stopping for tea from a flask and to get changed in T1 on a super sprint) and events aimed specifically at women, some of whom go on to be regular faces on the circuit.

This, at least, is my experience in Scotland.

Women generally are not encouraged in sports the way men are. There is a degree of hesitation to overcome, some of which comes from not having the innate audacity that society impresses upon straight white men in particular. Women look at something like audax, which is well outside the normal scope of things most people consider easily achievable (never mind enjoyable), and if they don't see other women visibly participating, then they don't have that natural "Of course I can do it and it might even be fun," reaction.

I'm a member of a couple of women-only cycling groups on bookface, as well as Audax Ecosse and Audax UK bookface groups. The nature of the conversation is completely different because the challenges are completely different. In the women-only groups, conversations are about needing to find a bike that fits, and a saddle that was designed for them, and shorts that aren't designed for some rail-thin Italian model who inhales dust and sunbeams in her morning hot yoga class in lieu of breakfast. They're about needing to overcome the social pressure not to be out on their own in case something happens to them. They have responsibilities in the house and home that limit the amount of time they have available to spend on the bike. They want encouragement, not sarcasm. They don't want to be made to feel stupid for asking basic questions. They want, in short, the kind of kindness and consideration that you offer to fellow humans you don't know very well, not the kind of banter that can be found in groups where everyone knows that one guy who used to carry a tin of rice pudding in his bottle cage and everyone has different opinions about which version of a specific audax was the best one, and shared memories of huddling in a bus stop in the pouring rain n the Welsh mountains in 1983.

I could see a women-only audax attracting the kind of women who have recently discovered cycling, are realising that they can do more than they imagined, and see a bunch of other women doing something that they previously hadn't considered possible.

I should also point out that the thought of doing an entire event without some of the crap I've had to put up with from men on rides (not triathlon), is quite appealing. For example, on the Edinburgh-St Andrews one year, I had a man start to overtake, glance down, then do a double take. "I didn't know women could ride fixed," said he, as if my vagina was responsible for changing gears and would implode if not given something to do. I yelled back over my shoulder to my husband, at that moment probably wondering where he could hide the body, "Darling, surprise! You're not gay!"

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: arabella on 17 May, 2021, 10:22:19 am
I see it more as a case of "you're perhaps put off by events being dominated by all those blingy bikes with regular audaxing people* on them who belong to a club and know each other already. 
"We'll put on an event that is going to limit these sorts of people.  But not entirely; there may be some club women and messieurs "la route est à tous et la trace sera publique.  Si vous tenez vraiment à accompagner une ou des rouleuses, vous pouvez évidemment le faire, et pour que vous soyez assurés sur la route, nous vous demandons de vous inscrire également."

So if I and friends weren't already audaxing in a huge way or wanted to dip a toe in, a mainly women event would help.
(Comment from random male colleague: he had to represent <something> at a women's event.  He had to give himself a stern talking to in the gents before he could walk into the room full of women.  Thinks I, sourly: I have to do the equivalent every single working day. )
I can think of only 1 event I've done where I've turned up and, unplanned, ridden with another woman.

aka: it's stressful always being the odd one out.


As for why there's a gender gap, it's possible that women's kit being  errm - my "short reach" brakes are still too long without me tweaking - may contribute.  And other defaults aimed at the average male?  But looking around, I suspect there is still a non-zero incidence of dad doing "important job" then needs bike ride to unwind whereas mum just gets on with the taxi service etc., so becomes dubious about fitness levels/ability to finish etc.  but icbw (and hope I am, your anecdata may be different)
Sam's put it  very well, thanks


*possibly including men who apparently want special recognition for going faster even though we're talking about audax, see threads passim
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 17 May, 2021, 10:41:51 am
Part of inclusiveness is making it feel that people just like you are doing the things that you are considered doing.  So you can see yourself doing it.  So to bring more women into audax I think it can only be a good thing.
This, yes? Welcoming and including the people who turn up is all well and good, but it's even better to design your event or activity so that more people who want to turn up, do. Which might mean something like stopping at a cafe rather than a pub, for instance.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: T42 on 17 May, 2021, 11:10:53 am
Does this have any connection to or motivation from the FFCT's "Toute à Vélo" action which was held in june I believe but is now in september? Although the weakness in the FFCT action to me has always been that it is restricted to FFCT members when there are sufficiently few women active in the clubs that they really reach out to all the ones outside. A bit like saying "look what we'r" doing!" and following that with "but you're not one of us so you can't join in". (Same negative thinking that goes with a lot of the encouraging of non-cyclists to join in and become cyclists generally, but the FFCT is particularly bad at this - Off post I'm sorry and others are not obliged to agree!)

Bof. FFCT membership at the lowest rate costs 36€50. First-rime membership price is lower by a good whack. And it means you can also do diagonales, BCMF, mer/montagne and a bunch of other fun stuff.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 17 May, 2021, 11:59:27 am

Bof. FFCT membership at the lowest rate costs 36€50. First-rime membership price is lower by a good whack. And it means you can also do diagonales, BCMF, mer/montagne and a bunch of other fun stuff.

OK, but why would you? What does that even mean?

If you want to get more women doing audax, you need to get more women cycling and confident about it. In the discussion groups of which I'm a member, conversations are congratulating one another for managing 20 miles, or asking what emergency kit to take (one respondent's answer was, "a mobile phone to call my husband" and my list of things I carry to get myself out of a mechanical was quite the eye-opener for most of the members who responded). There was one thread where a woman was excited about getting a backpack for a long charity ride -- she had no idea that you could put your luggage on your bike. Saying, "Membership is only yay much, and you get <unintelligible terminology>," isn't helpful.

But there are women signing up for sportives and charity rides. They are terrified, but they are doing it, and then they'll stop being terrified. And this is partially down to the other women cheering them on, and offering advice when they need it in simple terms, and generally just saying, "I can do it, so you can too, incidentally you might want to try this manufacturer because they recognise that we're not all made of lanky pipe cleaners."

The original question was why should there be a women's only audax. If you don't care about getting more women doing audax, then there's no need for one. There will always be a relatively small number of women who just go and do this kind of thing anyway. But if you want to get to the point where women turning up to ride any audax have a reasonable chance of seeing another woman, then things like this will help. It will ease the fear of being left behind because you're the only woman there and everyone else will be faster/more independent/less in need of company than you.  Women often feel safer and more confident with other women around. It's that straightforward.

FWIW, triathlons don't need you to be a member of anything. Membership of Tri Scotland or British Triathlon gets you a cheaper entry fee, but you don't have to be a member. A good rule of thumb is not to put additional hurdles in the way if you are trying to attract new people.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 17 May, 2021, 03:08:27 pm
I'm guessing you're a straight white able bodied man?

Short answer: Yes. But let me tell you one thing. By asking this question, you are being very divisive. Have I ever made any comment on this forum regarding your possible belonging to one group or another? Certainly not. Let's face it, you and me are just people, basic plain people who have the same hopes for a happy and peaceful life.

It's relevant because it means you are a type of person that the world (especially the cycling world) has been built around, whereas everyone else has to negotiate a world that wasn't built for them.

Saying "I've never noticed a problem, the world is great, let's just leave things as they are" is blithely ignoring that.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: postrestant on 17 May, 2021, 05:34:40 pm
well, the world in the UK and Europe and North America perhaps, but not the world.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 17 May, 2021, 05:50:44 pm
I honestly think that the model for inclusiveness has to be kayak Hasler racing.

These are races, not tours, however every event runs a huge range of divisions, starting from really quite slow to olympian. If you go fast, you get put in a higher division. A line up in the lower divisions is likely to have people ranging in age from 10 to 80s. Gender doesn't kick in until you are national level, then they separate the winners by gender (but often a combined race, since there aren't many entries at div 1/2 level in most regional races).

If you are in a populous area (lots of very serious clubs on the Thames) the slowest divisions will have olympians cheering them on.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 17 May, 2021, 05:56:53 pm
I honestly think that the model for inclusiveness has to be kayak Hasler racing.

These are races, not tours, however every event runs a huge range of divisions, starting from really quite slow to olympian. If you go fast, you get put in a higher division. A line up in the lower divisions is likely to have people ranging in age from 10 to 80s. Gender doesn't kick in until you are national level, then they separate the winners by gender (but often a combined race, since there aren't many entries at div 1/2 level in most regional races).

If you are in a populous area (lots of very serious clubs on the Thames) the slowest divisions will have olympians cheering them on.

Triathlon is the same. No gender segregation until you get to the Elites, and even then it depends on the race. Draft legal races are more likely to be segregated.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 17 May, 2021, 07:03:54 pm
FWIW, triathlons don't need you to be a member of anything. Membership of Tri Scotland or British Triathlon gets you a cheaper entry fee, but you don't have to be a member. A good rule of thumb is not to put additional hurdles in the way if you are trying to attract new people.
FWI (also)W:
very very few cycling events require membership of anything (or you can buy day membership for a teeny fee). And Triathlons are almost universally more expensive than the humble 200km Audax :P

I think there are other reasons for Tri being very gender-balanced, just MHO.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 17 May, 2021, 09:26:44 pm
FWIW, triathlons don't need you to be a member of anything. Membership of Tri Scotland or British Triathlon gets you a cheaper entry fee, but you don't have to be a member. A good rule of thumb is not to put additional hurdles in the way if you are trying to attract new people.
FWI (also)W:
very very few cycling events require membership of anything (or you can buy day membership for a teeny fee). And Triathlons are almost universally more expensive than the humble 200km Audax :P

I think there are other reasons for Tri being very gender-balanced, just MHO.

I was responding to a specific post. T42 said:

Quote
Bof. FFCT membership at the lowest rate costs 36€50. First-rime membership price is lower by a good whack. And it means you can also do diagonales, BCMF, mer/montagne and a bunch of other fun stuff.

I at no point suggested you need to be a member of Audax UK to do an audax. Nor did I suggest that lack of a membership requirement is the only thing that means triathlons are more gender balanced than cycling events.

But thanks for explaining something to me that I knew already  ::-) .

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 17 May, 2021, 10:43:54 pm
Triathlon, while possibly not as inclusive as it can be (although I've competed in the same event as blind athletes, I have yet to participate in an event with anyone who requires, e.g., a handcycle), is a remarkably inclusive sport. Races are segregated by how fast you are in the swim. That's it. If you can do 750m in 15 minutes, you will start with a bunch of other people who do the 750m in about 15 minutes. The majority of amateur races are non-drafting, so there's no requirement for the kind of bike skills you can only learn by being in a club (I was not permitted to join the clubs I approached as I only have one eye). On exiting the swim, it is normal for spectators (most triathletes have friends or family along) to cheer loudly for every competitor. It's a race, but it really is about participation. It's normal for triathletes who are unable to compete for injury reasons to marshal on races. There is no body shaming, which is a huge plus point in the sport's favour -- you look at televised sports and see whip-thin athletes running insane speeds, and then you go to an amateur event and see every body shape under the sun just getting round the best they can. There are events specifically targeted at beginners (I once saw some first time racers stopping for tea from a flask and to get changed in T1 on a super sprint) and events aimed specifically at women, some of whom go on to be regular faces on the circuit.

This, at least, is my experience in Scotland.

Women generally are not encouraged in sports the way men are. There is a degree of hesitation to overcome, some of which comes from not having the innate audacity that society impresses upon straight white men in particular. Women look at something like audax, which is well outside the normal scope of things most people consider easily achievable (never mind enjoyable), and if they don't see other women visibly participating, then they don't have that natural "Of course I can do it and it might even be fun," reaction.

I'm a member of a couple of women-only cycling groups on bookface, as well as Audax Ecosse and Audax UK bookface groups. The nature of the conversation is completely different because the challenges are completely different. In the women-only groups, conversations are about needing to find a bike that fits, and a saddle that was designed for them, and shorts that aren't designed for some rail-thin Italian model who inhales dust and sunbeams in her morning hot yoga class in lieu of breakfast. They're about needing to overcome the social pressure not to be out on their own in case something happens to them. They have responsibilities in the house and home that limit the amount of time they have available to spend on the bike. They want encouragement, not sarcasm. They don't want to be made to feel stupid for asking basic questions. They want, in short, the kind of kindness and consideration that you offer to fellow humans you don't know very well, not the kind of banter that can be found in groups where everyone knows that one guy who used to carry a tin of rice pudding in his bottle cage and everyone has different opinions about which version of a specific audax was the best one, and shared memories of huddling in a bus stop in the pouring rain n the Welsh mountains in 1983.

I could see a women-only audax attracting the kind of women who have recently discovered cycling, are realising that they can do more than they imagined, and see a bunch of other women doing something that they previously hadn't considered possible.

I should also point out that the thought of doing an entire event without some of the crap I've had to put up with from men on rides (not triathlon), is quite appealing. For example, on the Edinburgh-St Andrews one year, I had a man start to overtake, glance down, then do a double take. "I didn't know women could ride fixed," said he, as if my vagina was responsible for changing gears and would implode if not given something to do. I yelled back over my shoulder to my husband, at that moment probably wondering where he could hide the body, "Darling, surprise! You're not gay!"

Sam

I came to cycling from triathlon as I gradually lost the ability to run through arthritis. My tri club (53-12 in Colchester) was the most delightfully egalitarian, supportive and encouraging place I've ever had the pleasure to spend my spare time, and was at least 50% women. I miss it still, and it's 15 years since I last did a tri. I know from my women friends who went to ride with local cycling clubs that they suffered all the things you (and many others) report; I can totally understand why a women-only Audax would be appealing to many women. And why the hell not? What difference does it make to anyone who wouldn't want to take part? I hope it happens and I hope it's great.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 18 May, 2021, 07:27:35 am
If the numbers were not sufficient for completely separate events you could have two events simultaneously, clockwise and anti clockwise. Or two different start waves.

If you look at say park run (or triathlon) for your first event the challenge might be just to complete it. Thereafter you are trying to do the event as fast as possible, to beat your PB. In the case of parkrun (pre covid) many people are testing themselves weekly. Park runs are very popular inclusive gender balanced events so it is not competition per se that makes events non inclusive.

As grams mentioned above club cyclists are often sneery about tri athletes, but also sportives, mountain bikers, female cyclists, wrong socks...many things.
Perhaps in the absence regular competitive events  cyclists funnel their competitive urges into non competitive events like the “fast group” club rides or passing other cyclists on hills during training rides etc.

How this translates into audax which I view as a test of how far you can ride rather than how fast, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 18 May, 2021, 07:43:17 am

Triathlon is the same. No gender segregation until you get to the Elites, and even then it depends on the race. Draft legal races are more likely to be segregated.

Sam
Quite a few triathlons including the one I did at the weekend defaulted to gender and age based waves. They also had a couple of non segregated waves you could opt for if you wanted to be with someone from a different category.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 18 May, 2021, 10:04:48 am

Triathlon is the same. No gender segregation until you get to the Elites, and even then it depends on the race. Draft legal races are more likely to be segregated.

Sam
Quite a few triathlons including the one I did at the weekend defaulted to gender and age based waves. They also had a couple of non segregated waves you could opt for if you wanted to be with someone from a different category.

I've never seen that in any race I've done, but I've only raced in Scotland and once in Ireland.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 18 May, 2021, 11:01:54 am

Triathlon is the same. No gender segregation until you get to the Elites, and even then it depends on the race. Draft legal races are more likely to be segregated.

Sam
Quite a few triathlons including the one I did at the weekend defaulted to gender and age based waves. They also had a couple of non segregated waves you could opt for if you wanted to be with someone from a different category.

I've never seen that in any race I've done, but I've only raced in Scotland and once in Ireland.

Sam
I suppose it is dependant on size. I should be doing London tri for 1st time this summer and normally it has 13000 competitors and 60 starting waves but I don’t know how they are done. Everything is a bit odd at the moment anyway- all events are time trial starts within the waves and events that are normally draft legal are non drafting because of covid.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 18 May, 2021, 05:26:24 pm
Then, as I said above, let's take strong measures against the offenders, rather than segregate the offended people.

Excellent, let's cure everyday sexism while we're at it.

A lot of the problems I have at mixed events aren't big evil horrible things that would make everyone agree that a person should be banished from riding ever again, so as to make things nicer for everyone. No, it's microagressions. An accumulative death by a thousand cuts.

When you're milling around at the start, and someone asks "Are you here with your boyfriend?"...

When you're about to finish your RRtY, and some bloke looks down to you and asks "Is this your first audax?"

When you walk into the loo, and find a man at the sink, apologise, walk out, go into the other door, find men peeing in urinals, and go back to the other loo and say "this is the ladies", and they then look at you and try to claim that there are 80 of them and 2 of us, so we have to share. "Yes, but I came in here to change my bra, so get out"

When other riders make patronising comments about your bike.

When a rider is riding along with you and starts hitting on you, and you have to explain that you don't do men, to get them to go away.

When they try to tell you how to fix a mechanical, even tho you are a perfectly competent mechanic who built the bike you're riding, as well as doing the occasional shift in a bike shop.

Each one of these is minor. Each one isn't much. But they build up. Accumulating. One on top of the other, until you're suffocating in it all, and just say "Fuck it, I'll go ride on my own".

I've been told time and again by people of various genders that they couldn't do what I did. I did my first Audax in January 2018. In a land where I don't speak the language, when I'd been riding for just 6 weeks. It was windy, it was snowy, it rained, temps were around 0°C, it was hard, and I got round with just 20 minutes in hand. Yet on that one single event I got every question above apart from the toilet one. I've worked in a very male dominated industry for over 20 years. I know that my hobbies are also male dominated. But I continue because I'm seriously fucking stubborn. Many people aren't.

The idea of an all women ride. Sounds awesome. Not having to worry about microaggressions. Everyone being there with the same aim. Damn I wish I could get to this ride.

Quote
Short answer: Yes. But let me tell you one thing. By asking this question, you are being very divisive. Have I ever made any comment on this forum regarding your possible belonging to one group or another? Certainly not. Let's face it, you and me are just people, basic plain people who have the same hopes for a happy and peaceful life. You will not make the world a better place by building divisions between people.

I am not trying to build divisions. I am trying to point out that you have privilege that I do not. No one questions your right to be at the start of an event. I've been told I'm too fat to race (by people on this very forum!!!), I've been told that I am taking a space that could have been given to a man who would do better than me in said race. I got called a beginner by the manager of the local Rapha store, a month after I had come 2nd in an ultra race. As a Straight, White, Able-bodied, Man you do not experience the world the way those in minorities do. And quite frankly, it's offensive the attitude many take of "Well I don't have any issues, so I don't know why the women don't want to ride with the men".

I would love to live in a world where people are welcoming and friendly when I turn up to a ride. Where people don't feel the need to question the validity of my presence. I'd love to turn up for rides and not be the only woman.

But despite it being 2021. I do not live in that world. We do not live in that world.

I am not sewing the seeds of division. I do hope however that by explaining how I experience the world, people will come to understand that maybe, just maybe, they have privilege others do not, and maybe, learn to check their privilege from time to time.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 18 May, 2021, 05:31:58 pm

My view is that the hidden message behind women-only events is "You are not good enough to enter a regular event, so we'll do something special for you".  This is for me the very definition of "patronising", and this is why I am not fond of segregated events. If some people, white males or others, have a poor behavior during an event, it is these offenders that should be excluded from the event, not their victims.

That is the message from the UCI and the IOC, when the women's races are shorter, with less climbing. That is the message they send when the Giro Rosa is only 10 days, but the men do 21. That is the message when the Tour De France is 21 stages, but La course is a single short stage.

There's talk of a women's Tour De France next year. Which is on the most part being celebrated. But if it's not 21 days, and the same distance and difficulty as the men's. It's just reinforcing that women are smaller men.

Especially when we know that Women can not only compete with, but beat men. Fiona has taught us that. Lael has taught us that. Sarah has taught us that. Jasmine has taught us that. It is 2021. There is no reason the women's race should not be exactly the same route as the mens.

But that is different from a women's only non competitive event. Those happen because sometimes we just want to get away from the microagressions of men. (see other post for details).

Quote

I remember that some years ago, there was a discussion on this forum about a possible change in AUK rules for allowing separate male/female classifications, or different rules for women. Most posters, including many women, were clearly opposed to that. Maybe times have changed :)

Well given that for an Audax, the results are either you completed, or you didn't. It does seem rather silly to make two lists based on gender.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 18 May, 2021, 05:41:36 pm
As for why there's a gender gap, it's possible that women's kit being  errm - my "short reach" brakes are still too long without me tweaking - may contribute.  And other defaults aimed at the average male?  But looking around, I suspect there is still a non-zero incidence of dad doing "important job" then needs bike ride to unwind whereas mum just gets on with the taxi service etc., so becomes dubious about fitness levels/ability to finish etc.  but icbw (and hope I am, your anecdata may be different)
Sam's put it  very well, thanks

I've ranted about this at length on this forum. The problems with the bike industry failing to cater to women are pretty well documented. Whether it's bike sizes not going small enough (credit to Canyon for going down to XXS and 650b wheels in their women's range), to women's bike clothing not going big enough for larger women (I cross dress on most of my rides as most women's jerseys don't go big enough for my boobs.), the default gearing arrangements being stupidly high because men all seem to think they are Chris Froome (kudos to Shimano for the GRX groupsets offering 46/30 chainsets, shame they don't come with an 11-40 cassette option).

And that is all before you get to the issue of a woman walking into a bike shop. A man can walk into a bike shop with €1000, and have a very high likely hood of walking out with a bike that fits them, suits their needs, and is the colour they like. A woman often can't. I went into one of the better bike shops in Amsterdam, and asked to look at their women's road bikes. They showed me a Specialised bike. I asked if they had an others, they pointed to the same bike in large. I asked if they had them anything that wasn't pink. They shook their head. Their women's range was two bikes. They had dozens of men's bikes. Oh and their Jersey selection was pretty poor too.

Another time I was hiding from the rain in the bike shop while I waited for my tram. I was looking at the bike computers. Some sales droid walks up and starts talking to me. I ask what the battery life is like on the computers. "Oh these are about 8 hours, plenty for any ride you do".

"I did 325 km at the weekend in 19 hours". The look on his face was fantastic...

I've stopped going to bike shops with men, because if I ask a question, they give the answer to my male friend, not me.

All of these things make it harder for a woman to just get on a bike.

I realise I am preaching to the converted on this by replying to your post specifically. This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 18 May, 2021, 06:13:45 pm
All of these things make it harder for a woman to just get on a bike.

I realise I am preaching to the converted on this by replying to your post specifically. This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading.

Back before the Horrible Lung Catastrophe, I organised (in the loosest sense of the word) the Scottish equivalent of the Dun Run (not Ride to the Sun -- we were doing overnight centuries years before that). One year, my friend (Andy Gates, whom some might remember from other parts) and I went into a well-known bicycle co-operative in that Edinburgh for spares. I was explaining to the male shop assistant what we were doing that weekend, on the basis he might want to join us. "It's a lark," says I. "We're all doing it on fixed this year."

He eyed me up and down and then said, with some doubt, "Well I suppose some women might be strong enough to ride fixed."

Andy dragged me from the shop before there was a fatality.

Only a couple of years ago, I was back in that well known co-operative because one of my shoes had literally fallen apart on my way back from getting my eye polished. I walked in and explained what I wanted in detail. While I was trying on new shoes, the male (it's always the male) shop assistant spent the whole time trying to persuade me to buy a helmet, because clearly, as a woman, I hadn't thought about it properly. I lacked the experience to make an adequate risk assessment, he told me.

That did not go well for him.

I am so effing tired of being ignored, talked down to, treated as if I don't know what I'm doing, talked over, and having male cyclists and cycling professionals assume they know more than me, even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is what it's like to be a woman who rides a bike in any way other than as a trip to the shops with a basket on the front worrying about helmet hair with a husband to do the technical bits. In this house, I do all the bike maintenance. My best cycling experiences have been in the company of a small number of friends who know hecking better, or by myself. I have known two bike shops in my time where I have not felt the need to re-align the attitude of at least one member of staff, and they were both in Exeter.

It has been a number of years since I did anything longer than about 30 miles (see Horrible Lung Catastrophe), and the idea of pitching up to an audax and being treated as a newbie who doesn't know her Shimano from her SRAM does not appeal. But I would dust off some suitable machine and sign up to a women only event. That sounds amazing.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 18 May, 2021, 06:17:53 pm

I am so effing tired of being ignored, talked down to, treated as if I don't know what I'm doing, talked over, and having male cyclists and cycling professionals assume they know more than me, even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is what it's like to be a woman who rides a bike in any way other than as a trip to the shops with a basket on the front worrying about helmet hair with a husband to do the technical bits. In this house, I do all the bike maintenance. My best cycling experiences have been in the company of a small number of friends who know hecking better, or by myself. I have known two bike shops in my time where I have not felt the need to re-align the attitude of at least one member of staff, and they were both in Exeter.


a-(wo)men sister!


Quote
It has been a number of years since I did anything longer than about 30 miles (see Horrible Lung Catastrophe), and the idea of pitching up to an audax and being treated as a newbie who doesn't know her Shimano from her SRAM does not appeal. But I would dust off some suitable machine and sign up to a women only event. That sounds amazing.

Exactly.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 18 May, 2021, 06:35:04 pm
You'd need to already be fairly 'into cycling' to consider a 200, so this isn't about that. Presumably someone has noticed those who are not cisgender male are not progressing from 100km or whatever up to longer distances.

I can think of 3 reasons for this:

a) just not interested
b) interested, but prevented from taking part
c) interested, but electing not to take part if it's going to be like experiences already had on shorter rides


a) is fine and beautiful, no need to fix it
b) good fixes would be to address gender wage gaps, acknowledge care-based labour as labour, male partners to pull their weight with domestic duties and childcare, etc etc
b) a good fix would be to gather 200 moderately pissed off people together at a widely publicised event where they can swap stories and contact details and then self-organise to build environments that are less awful. Vive la révolution.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 18 May, 2021, 07:15:19 pm
<snip>
I was responding to a specific post. T42 said:

Quote
Bof. FFCT membership at the lowest rate costs 36€50. First-rime membership price is lower by a good whack. And it means you can also do diagonales, BCMF, mer/montagne and a bunch of other fun stuff.

I at no point suggested you need to be a member of Audax UK to do an audax. Nor did I suggest that lack of a membership requirement is the only thing that means triathlons are more gender balanced than cycling events.

But thanks for explaining something to me that I knew already  ::-) .

Sam
Woah! I was just making an observation (and I wasn't real interested in the FFCT stuff so may have ignored it, soz everyone ...)
Didn't intend a "knowledge of bike events" joust :)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 18 May, 2021, 07:59:51 pm
The unpleasant bike shopping experience and non female friendly bike fit would affect female triathletes too but does not seem to deter them as much.

I suppose in tri there is less interaction with other participants. On an audax and other cycling events there is more interaction which could be bad interaction.

I did think about what people have said about equality of events and media coverage. It is true professional triathlon events are on same day, same distance and equal tv coverage. The most exciting to watch is the mixed super sprint relay which hopefully GB should win at Tokyo, but I am not convinced many people see tri on tv.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 18 May, 2021, 08:14:29 pm
The unpleasant bike shopping experience and non female friendly bike fit would affect female triathletes too but does not seem to deter them as much.

I suppose in tri there is less interaction with other participants. On an audax and other cycling events there is more interaction which could be bad interaction.

I did think about what people have said about equality of events and media coverage. It is true professional triathlon events are on same day, same distance and equal tv coverage. The most exciting to watch is the mixed super sprint relay which hopefully GB should win at Tokyo, but I am not convinced many people see tri on tv.

Unless you're doing Ironman, you're not spending much more than a couple of hours on your bike. Sprint events you can do on any old beater as long as it's legal. You won't be fast, but you're not going to be in your first event anyway. Not having a decent bike is no barrier. I have two race bikes for tri. Both feel a little too small for me, but I manage. I much prefer my larger bikes, even though they are theoretically too big for my height, for long distances.

Once you start getting serious, that's when you (as a woman) join the ranks of the pissed off. By then, you're kind of hooked.

I think the real advantage of tri is that you can have a go at a short event. A super sprint is a great taster and you can use it as a fitness goal without any massive commitment. With audax, there is no "easy" way in to see if you'll enjoy the experience, so you need to have something else that makes it appealing.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 18 May, 2021, 08:28:06 pm
I think the real advantage of tri is that you can have a go at a short event. A super sprint is a great taster and you can use it as a fitness goal without any massive commitment. With audax, there is no "easy" way in to see if you'll enjoy the experience, so you need to have something else that makes it appealing.
There are some very easy 100ks around (and the odd 50k; I organised a few flat 80s as part of a local festival). I guess they take longer than the short triathlons? But maybe take a lot less prep/logistics (as you "only" need to get ready for the bike bit)?

Then there are 10mile TTs. A *very* short event!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 18 May, 2021, 08:33:11 pm
I think the real advantage of tri is that you can have a go at a short event. A super sprint is a great taster and you can use it as a fitness goal without any massive commitment. With audax, there is no "easy" way in to see if you'll enjoy the experience, so you need to have something else that makes it appealing.
There are some very easy 100ks around (and the odd 50k; I organised a few flat 80s as part of a local festival). I guess they take longer than the short triathlons? But maybe take a lot less prep/logistics (as you "only" need to get ready for the bike bit)?

Then there are 10mile TTs. A *very* short event!

Even 100km on a bike seems a lot compared to a 400m swim, a 10km bike ride, and a 3km run.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 18 May, 2021, 10:08:59 pm
I have two race bikes for tri. Both feel a little too small for me, but I manage. I much prefer my larger bikes, even though they are theoretically too big for my height, for long distances.
I use a much smaller and much more uncomfortable bike for tri than audax. For long distance cycling I also have a bike that is “too big”.
Quote
Once you start getting serious, that's when you (as a woman) join the ranks of the pissed off. By then, you're kind of hooked.
Most of the people I know that do tri are towards the serious end. They all seem happy (apart from crumbling bodies). Perhaps they have gone beyond the pissed off stage.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 18 May, 2021, 10:16:27 pm
I think the real advantage of tri is that you can have a go at a short event. A super sprint is a great taster and you can use it as a fitness goal without any massive commitment. With audax, there is no "easy" way in to see if you'll enjoy the experience, so you need to have something else that makes it appealing.
There are some very easy 100ks around (and the odd 50k; I organised a few flat 80s as part of a local festival). I guess they take longer than the short triathlons? But maybe take a lot less prep/logistics (as you "only" need to get ready for the bike bit)?

Then there are 10mile TTs. A *very* short event!

Even 100km on a bike seems a lot compared to a 400m swim, a 10km bike ride, and a 3km run.

Sam

What I loved about tris was how sociable they are, in a way that a club TT can't be because (obvs) you're mainly alone on your bike. Club sprint tris, for those of us at the more stately end of the field, are a riot! Much more time spent gossiping than expending calories - but just enough of that to justify a decent Sunday lunch afterwards! Tris are definitely Type 1 Fun, until of course you get serious about it. But even then, they seem more approachable than most (not all, by any means) running or cycling events. Ah, nostalgia (yes, I know - it's not what it used to be).
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Tull924 on 18 May, 2021, 10:25:53 pm
The cycling club I belong to (Crewe Clarion Wheelers) has had some truly fantastic women riders over the years (Christine Roberts rode 461 miles back in late 1990's and no club member to date has beat, of either gender) but overall female membership always hovered around the 10% mark. The female members decided they wanted a ladies only ride on the first Saturday of each month to allow other women to come and meet them and to help them to get into club cycling so when they turned up on club events there would be other women there. There were some obvious comments from people who should know better at the time questioning why the need to positively discriminate. They have gone ahead and over the past three years have grown the female membership to 25% which in my opinion is a wonderful start and can only be a good thing. Several of them are actively engaged in audax at all distances. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that a women only audax could only ever be a positive thing for everybody involved, it should be used to assist women to begin to participate in ordinary audaxes rather becoming a separate sub-group of women who only ride "women only" audaxes
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mzjo on 18 May, 2021, 11:03:38 pm

Bof. FFCT membership at the lowest rate costs 36€50. First-rime membership price is lower by a good whack. And it means you can also do diagonales, BCMF, mer/montagne and a bunch of other fun stuff.

OK, but why would you? What does that even mean?

If you want to get more women doing audax, you need to get more women cycling and confident about it. In the discussion groups of which I'm a member, conversations are congratulating one another for managing 20 miles, or asking what emergency kit to take (one respondent's answer was, "a mobile phone to call my husband" and my list of things I carry to get myself out of a mechanical was quite the eye-opener for most of the members who responded). There was one thread where a woman was excited about getting a backpack for a long charity ride -- she had no idea that you could put your luggage on your bike. Saying, "Membership is only yay much, and you get <unintelligible terminology>," isn't helpful.

But there are women signing up for sportives and charity rides. They are terrified, but they are doing it, and then they'll stop being terrified. And this is partially down to the other women cheering them on, and offering advice when they need it in simple terms, and generally just saying, "I can do it, so you can too, incidentally you might want to try this manufacturer because they recognise that we're not all made of lanky pipe cleaners."

The original question was why should there be a women's only audax. If you don't care about getting more women doing audax, then there's no need for one. There will always be a relatively small number of women who just go and do this kind of thing anyway. But if you want to get to the point where women turning up to ride any audax have a reasonable chance of seeing another woman, then things like this will help. It will ease the fear of being left behind because you're the only woman there and everyone else will be faster/more independent/less in need of company than you.  Women often feel safer and more confident with other women around. It's that straightforward.

FWIW, triathlons don't need you to be a member of anything. Membership of Tri Scotland or British Triathlon gets you a cheaper entry fee, but you don't have to be a member. A good rule of thumb is not to put additional hurdles in the way if you are trying to attract new people.

Sam

^^^^ This (speaking as a non-female humanoid). Although there are also quite a few male cyclos for whom the most essential part of the repair kit is the mobile phone to ring the wife/partner to be rescued when they break down! (and quite a few ladies who are very competent fixing their bikes when they need to, even following instructions when it's the first time - three of them happen to be my daughters!)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 19 May, 2021, 08:04:32 am
a women only audax could only ever be a positive thing for everybody involved, it should be used to assist women to begin to participate in ordinary audaxes

Does the panel think there's any hope of 'ordinary' audaxe(r)s learning from what women say they don't like about them and then changing accordingly? Because maybe it's not just the women that need to learn new skills and find out what more they're capable of...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Tommyp27 on 19 May, 2021, 09:07:12 am
Been reading this from the start, but left off posting a while.

I think it all comes down to what do women and maybe also those who identify as women or non binary want?

I'm also in favour of the stuff Brixton CC and Kingston Wheelers have done encourage more diversity.

I've seen first hand the patronising  behaviour my missus has had to go through. Despite the fact that she used to regularly win events at track leagues as the only woman (refusing a handicap start), can outspin most people in a roller race and has actually worked in a bike shop.

These days we mostly use Baker Street in Brighton (never once have they patronised her, only showed respect, despite being all male staffed) and Brixton Cycles (which is probably the most diversely staffed shop I know).

In a perfect world we wouldn't have put up with others predajuces. But unfortunately we haven't beaten all of them yet. Audax seems more inclusive, but I'm yet to even do a Calendar event so maybe I could be wrong, but I honestly think it's above much of the rest of 'event based' cycling.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 09:52:00 am
I've ranted about this at length on this forum. The problems with the bike industry failing to cater to women are pretty well documented. Whether it's bike sizes not going small enough (credit to Canyon for going down to XXS and 650b wheels in their women's range), to women's bike clothing not going big enough for larger women (I cross dress on most of my rides as most women's jerseys don't go big enough for my boobs.), the default gearing arrangements being stupidly high because men all seem to think they are Chris Froome (kudos to Shimano for the GRX groupsets offering 46/30 chainsets, shame they don't come with an 11-40 cassette option).

And that is all before you get to the issue of a woman walking into a bike shop. A man can walk into a bike shop with €1000, and have a very high likely hood of walking out with a bike that fits them, suits their needs, and is the colour they like. A woman often can't. I went into one of the better bike shops in Amsterdam, and asked to look at their women's road bikes. They showed me a Specialised bike. I asked if they had an others, they pointed to the same bike in large. I asked if they had them anything that wasn't pink. They shook their head. Their women's range was two bikes. They had dozens of men's bikes. Oh and their Jersey selection was pretty poor too.

Another time I was hiding from the rain in the bike shop while I waited for my tram. I was looking at the bike computers. Some sales droid walks up and starts talking to me. I ask what the battery life is like on the computers. "Oh these are about 8 hours, plenty for any ride you do".

"I did 325 km at the weekend in 19 hours". The look on his face was fantastic...

I've stopped going to bike shops with men, because if I ask a question, they give the answer to my male friend, not me.

All of these things make it harder for a woman to just get on a bike.

I realise I am preaching to the converted on this by replying to your post specifically. This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading.

J

Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?
I read through your list of sexist behaviours thinking "well I don't do that", "nor that", "I don't do that either".
I get that the idea behind a women only audax might be simply that the only way to eliminate sexist men might be to eliminate all men, with the well-meaning intention of having a sexism-free event, but I think the point that guilt should stem from "doing" not from "being" needs to be made. My hope is that you accept that.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 19 May, 2021, 09:55:18 am


Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?
I read through your list of sexist behaviours thinking "well I don't do that", "nor that", "I don't do that either".
I get that the idea behind a women only audax might be simply that the only way to eliminate sexist men might be to eliminate all men, with the well-meaning intention of having a sexism-free event, but I think the point that guilt should stem from "doing" not from "being" needs to be made. My hope is that you accept that.

And we have our first #NotAllMen ...

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: frankly frankie on 19 May, 2021, 09:56:04 am
When they try to tell you how to fix a mechanical, even tho you are a perfectly competent mechanic who built the bike you're riding, as well as doing the occasional shift in a bike shop.

That's just plain bad manners.  (Offering advice un-asked for.)  The sexism is in your mind.

An all-female event (in a context such as this where segregation is not the norm) seems discriminatory to me, and, if it were an Audax UK event, would contravene the Regulations (8.2 "AUK events are open to all cyclists ...")
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 09:59:47 am


Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?
I read through your list of sexist behaviours thinking "well I don't do that", "nor that", "I don't do that either".
I get that the idea behind a women only audax might be simply that the only way to eliminate sexist men might be to eliminate all men, with the well-meaning intention of having a sexism-free event, but I think the point that guilt should stem from "doing" not from "being" needs to be made. My hope is that you accept that.

And we have our first #NotAllMen ...

J

So do you have a problem with that then? It is all men, then, as far as you're concerned? OK. As long as we know where we stand.  ::-)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 19 May, 2021, 10:03:03 am
I am really sorry now that I started this thread. That is pretty rare.

Is it better to split the original announcement from the resulting discussion or lock it or delete it or what?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 19 May, 2021, 10:05:15 am
As a not-permanently-offended male, I understood QG's intention to be "for the benefit of any men reading who don't have firsthand experience the cycling world as a woman" which would, indeed, be all of them.

(or all cis ones, anyway)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 10:25:10 am
I am really sorry now that I started this thread. That is pretty rare.

Is it better to split the original announcement from the resulting discussion or lock it or delete it or what?

nah, sorry, don't need to bother from my perspective, sorry to drag it off line. Just fell into the trap as I often do of thinking I could get somewhere or get something across .... if QG replies and I feel the need to come back on it I'll do it via PM, was actually in two minds whether to anyway.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 19 May, 2021, 10:35:42 am

Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?
I read through your list of sexist behaviours thinking "well I don't do that", "nor that", "I don't do that either".
I get that the idea behind a women only audax might be simply that the only way to eliminate sexist men might be to eliminate all men, with the well-meaning intention of having a sexism-free event, but I think the point that guilt should stem from "doing" not from "being" needs to be made. My hope is that you accept that.

Any man who doesn't understand the issues women face, and who might question why a women-only audax has appeal.

Thought that was pretty obvious.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Beardy on 19 May, 2021, 10:37:29 am


Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?
I read through your list of sexist behaviours thinking "well I don't do that", "nor that", "I don't do that either".
I get that the idea behind a women only audax might be simply that the only way to eliminate sexist men might be to eliminate all men, with the well-meaning intention of having a sexism-free event, but I think the point that guilt should stem from "doing" not from "being" needs to be made. My hope is that you accept that.

And we have our first #NotAllMen ...

J
I think that sexism is like racism, and indeed any other ‘othering’ that exists. Emotionally we nearly all respond with a ‘it’s them’ thought largely because as animals we need to categorise the world into threat and none threat. Our intellect, based on our education, experience and life values allows us to override this initial response with a more measured and considerate behaviour. Of course, there are some very rare individuals who never ‘other’ people they meet, but they are a vanishingly rare group of individuals, and as long as the rest of us can recognise our prejudices and respond outwardly as inclusive the world will be a better place. </streamofconsciousness>
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Chris S on 19 May, 2021, 10:38:08 am
I am really sorry now that I started this thread. That is pretty rare.

That's a shame. It's a discussion that's wandered somewhat - but that's the way of forums, even before you factor in the subject matter and the possibility of triggering people who are ready to be triggered.

Having witnessed blatant sexism against fboab when we've been audaxing, I can see there might be appeal in X-only rides (for various values of X) although as a white privileged male, I also appreciate I have no idea what it's really like to be on the receving end of an 'ism of any kind.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 19 May, 2021, 10:41:45 am

Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?
I read through your list of sexist behaviours thinking "well I don't do that", "nor that", "I don't do that either".
I get that the idea behind a women only audax might be simply that the only way to eliminate sexist men might be to eliminate all men, with the well-meaning intention of having a sexism-free event, but I think the point that guilt should stem from "doing" not from "being" needs to be made. My hope is that you accept that.

It's like with racism: it's not enough to not be overtly racist, you have to be actively anti-racist. Otherwise you're still supporting racism.

So in this case that means all men (everyone really, but especially men) checking their complicity in propping up systems of patriarchy and misogyny, and all men (everyone really, but especially men) stepping up to call things out.

Thanks to people sharing their experiences on this thread, everyone's got another handy list of recurring problematic behaviours that they can look out for and act on.  :thumbsup:



Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 19 May, 2021, 10:49:02 am
When they try to tell you how to fix a mechanical, even tho you are a perfectly competent mechanic who built the bike you're riding, as well as doing the occasional shift in a bike shop.

That's just plain bad manners.  (Offering advice un-asked for.)  The sexism is in your mind.

An all-female event (in a context such as this where segregation is not the norm) seems discriminatory to me, and, if it were an Audax UK event, would contravene the Regulations (8.2 "AUK events are open to all cyclists ...")

And this is (one of the reasons) why women might want a women-only event.

"It's all in your mind," is one step removed from, "Calm down dear." If you don't know why that's patronising, then you'll possibly never understand -- and probably don't care! -- why there aren't more women in cycling.

And pulling out the AUK rules as an argument why there shouldn't be an event to encourage women to participate? Really? Far far better to have a scant few women participating than do something to encourage more to give audax a try even if it means bending the rules for even one event a year? One event, out of all of them, where women might see themselves represented amongst the other riders and feel confident enough to take part even if they haven't done it before.

That's really quite sad.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 19 May, 2021, 10:56:20 am
I'd imagine some of the women most attracted to the idea of a women-only cycling event would be from conservative Muslim, Hindu or "similar" (this list is far from exhaustive) backgrounds, making it a good way to give a taste of long-distance cycling to people who feel excluded on a number of fronts.

I also tried to imagine what would happen if, say, French Tandem, BenT and I wanted to start playing netball or maybe get into flower arranging.
Quote
the men's game is not recognised by the International Netball Federation (INF), and there is no England national seven-a-side team.
Quote
In England, netball is offered as a mixed game up until the age of 11.

Declan Kohl has this year formed Northern Titans - a new men's team pooling players between Leeds and Manchester - and believes that needs to change.

"That's where you lose men's netball. At 11, boys are told it's a girls' sport.

"We've definitely had things on Instagram and Twitter where people say 'it's a girls' sport' - we're trying to change that bias.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/netball/49064414
I guess things have changed; when I was a kid it was definitely only for girls even up to 11. I'm pretty sure there must be a lot of basic knowledge from playing at school that's present in women's netball but has to be learned from scratch in the mixed teams. Anyway, if it can happen with netball, why not? Oh and I googled "flower arranging for men" didn't find any courses but did get lots of results along the lines of "interflora for men".

Anyway, audax, netball, triathlon and flowers are just hobbies, fundamentally inconsequential to all but their participants, so do them with who you want?

Ed: I forgot to mention (how I imagined) the possible effect on women already playing netball when men join their team or they play against male or mixed teams. I imagine it might inhibit some of their jokes and banter; just as the presence of women can in a traditionally male environment. In short, a small dose of the other (whether that's men in a female environment, women in a male one, young people in an old one, etc) might have a civilizing effect.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 19 May, 2021, 10:58:22 am
There is lived experience/ history behind most folk’s responses on this thread. For instance, FF’s partner Sheila is one of the unalloyed all-time greats of audaxing. She has accomplished more than almost anybody on this forum will ever do, regardless of gender. That sort of history will tend to affect how somebody views more tentative(?) people, ‘Why don’t they just ignore <this> and do it anyway?’
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Beardy on 19 May, 2021, 11:03:20 am
This reminds me a little of the Gymphobics women only gyms that have popped up in a number of places around here. My initial response was ‘is that actually legal?’ and the associated male bollox baggage, through to an understanding of why they exist. As a middle aged white educated male I gave up worrying about what others thought about my body a long time ago, but I can understand why women would want to avoid the letching and judgement of a gym full of testosteroned up blokes. I don’t think we’re nearly as discreet as we think we are in either behaviour. And that’s just the passive behaviours, there are far too many men who think it ok to show a ‘little lady’ how she should do something ‘properly’.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 11:23:15 am
This reminds me a little of the Gymphobics women only gyms that have popped up in a number of places around here. My initial response was ‘is that actually legal?’ and the associated male bollox baggage, through to an understanding of why they exist. As a middle aged white educated male I gave up worrying about what others thought about my body a long time ago, but I can understand why women would want to avoid the letching and judgement of a gym full of testosteroned up blokes. I don’t think we’re nearly as discreet as we think we are in either behaviour. And that’s just the passive behaviours, there are far too many men who think it ok to show a ‘little lady’ how she should do something ‘properly’.

think it's legal if it's a private members club, rather than a public service - cos iirc a taxi company said they were women only and they had to declare themselves a private members club to be compliant
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mzjo on 19 May, 2021, 11:28:04 am
FWIW, triathlons don't need you to be a member of anything. Membership of Tri Scotland or British Triathlon gets you a cheaper entry fee, but you don't have to be a member. A good rule of thumb is not to put additional hurdles in the way if you are trying to attract new people.
FWI (also)W:
very very few cycling events require membership of anything (or you can buy day membership for a teeny fee). And Triathlons are almost universally more expensive than the humble 200km Audax :P

I think there are other reasons for Tri being very gender-balanced, just MHO.

I was responding to a specific post. T42 said:

Quote
Bof. FFCT membership at the lowest rate costs 36€50. First-rime membership price is lower by a good whack. And it means you can also do diagonales, BCMF, mer/montagne and a bunch of other fun stuff.

I at no point suggested you need to be a member of Audax UK to do an audax. Nor did I suggest that lack of a membership requirement is the only thing that means triathlons are more gender balanced than cycling events.

But thanks for explaining something to me that I knew already  ::-) .

Sam

To put this in context T42 was replying to a comment that I made about a certain type of FFCT organisation trying to inspire ladies to come club cycling while actually refusing to let them try the specific ladies event unless they were already in - which provoked the comment about the cost of FFCT membership (about which he is wrong! - unless the person, lady or other, is 2nd adult in a family membership, it costs more than that MI or Club - but that is not relevant here; PDFs available in support if required).

You don't need a licence for any federation to participate in most leisure cycling events in France either (including, I am sure, a large number of BRMs). Competition is different and slightly more complex (UFOLEP sportives for example) and the FFCT Sport licence muddies the pool even more. Medical certs may be required but that's not federation linked either. It would be normal to have up to half the participants in UFOLEP randonnées that don't belong to any federation (information from a friend who organises) and are there for the fun!

For information and to avoid confusion the shortest brevet BRM, that you people would think of as Audax, in France is a 200. Anything shorter than that is nothing to do with the ACP and is organised on a variety of categories by clubs in FFCT, Ufolep, BCF and other federations that I can't remember the names of
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 19 May, 2021, 11:35:41 am
And pulling out the AUK rules as an argument why there shouldn't be an event to encourage women to participate? Really? Far far better to have a scant few women participating than do something to encourage more to give audax a try even if it means bending the rules for even one event a year? One event, out of all of them, where women might see themselves represented amongst the other riders and feel confident enough to take part even if they haven't done it before.

That's really quite sad.

Sam

If AUK choose to hide behind their rules and refuse to sanction a women-only event, there's no reason why those who wish to promote it couldn't start a women-only long-distance cycling club under British Cycling, gaining the insurance benefits as well as some helpful organisational tools ... I think that would be rather excellent.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mzjo on 19 May, 2021, 01:34:51 pm
Then, as I said above, let's take strong measures against the offenders, rather than segregate the offended people.

Excellent, let's cure everyday sexism while we're at it.

A lot of the problems I have at mixed events aren't big evil horrible things that would make everyone agree that a person should be banished from riding ever again, so as to make things nicer for everyone. No, it's microagressions. An accumulative death by a thousand cuts.

When you're milling around at the start, and someone asks "Are you here with your boyfriend?"...

When you're about to finish your RRtY, and some bloke looks down to you and asks "Is this your first audax?"

When you walk into the loo, and find a man at the sink, apologise, walk out, go into the other door, find men peeing in urinals, and go back to the other loo and say "this is the ladies", and they then look at you and try to claim that there are 80 of them and 2 of us, so we have to share. "Yes, but I came in here to change my bra, so get out"

When other riders make patronising comments about your bike.

When a rider is riding along with you and starts hitting on you, and you have to explain that you don't do men, to get them to go away.

When they try to tell you how to fix a mechanical, even tho you are a perfectly competent mechanic who built the bike you're riding, as well as doing the occasional shift in a bike shop.

Each one of these is minor. Each one isn't much. But they build up. Accumulating. One on top of the other, until you're suffocating in it all, and just say "Fuck it, I'll go ride on my own".

I've been told time and again by people of various genders that they couldn't do what I did. I did my first Audax in January 2018. In a land where I don't speak the language, when I'd been riding for just 6 weeks. It was windy, it was snowy, it rained, temps were around 0°C, it was hard, and I got round with just 20 minutes in hand. Yet on that one single event I got every question above apart from the toilet one. I've worked in a very male dominated industry for over 20 years. I know that my hobbies are also male dominated. But I continue because I'm seriously fucking stubborn. Many people aren't.

The idea of an all women ride. Sounds awesome. Not having to worry about microaggressions. Everyone being there with the same aim. Damn I wish I could get to this ride.

Quote
Short answer: Yes. But let me tell you one thing. By asking this question, you are being very divisive. Have I ever made any comment on this forum regarding your possible belonging to one group or another? Certainly not. Let's face it, you and me are just people, basic plain people who have the same hopes for a happy and peaceful life. You will not make the world a better place by building divisions between people.

I am not trying to build divisions. I am trying to point out that you have privilege that I do not. No one questions your right to be at the start of an event. I've been told I'm too fat to race (by people on this very forum!!!), I've been told that I am taking a space that could have been given to a man who would do better than me in said race. I got called a beginner by the manager of the local Rapha store, a month after I had come 2nd in an ultra race. As a Straight, White, Able-bodied, Man you do not experience the world the way those in minorities do. And quite frankly, it's offensive the attitude many take of "Well I don't have any issues, so I don't know why the women don't want to ride with the men".

I would love to live in a world where people are welcoming and friendly when I turn up to a ride. Where people don't feel the need to question the validity of my presence. I'd love to turn up for rides and not be the only woman.

But despite it being 2021. I do not live in that world. We do not live in that world.

I am not sewing the seeds of division. I do hope however that by explaining how I experience the world, people will come to understand that maybe, just maybe, they have privilege others do not, and maybe, learn to check their privilege from time to time.

J

My bold. What's stopping you? Amsterdam is not that far from Paris! If we are still restricted it will be postponed, not cancelled. You don't even have to be up to speed, the details (at least in french) say that the BRM delay is purely notional, if you take longer no-one will care provided you have a nice day out!

For the rest of this post as a straight, white (relatively) able-bodied man (for which I have my parents to thank, not even my choice) and a father (of girls) so at the top of the sexist familial hierarchy I am left wondering what I am meant to do. Do I give up riding with women as "compagnons of fortune" on brevets montagnards (the men generally climb much too quick for me, most women ditto!)? Am I no longer permitted to stop and offer assistance to a cyclist if it's the wrong sex? Am I even banned from going into a cycle shop with one of my daughters in case she asks me for advice (or just an opinion)? Where does it all stop? I can't even ask my wife for advice, she thinks that the sofa and the internal combustion engine are God's gifts and the bicycle is the work of Stan and I know where to put it! Only thing left to do - go for a ride, alone!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 19 May, 2021, 01:46:36 pm
For the rest of this post as a straight, white (relatively) able-bodied man (for which I have my parents to thank, not even my choice) and a father (of girls) so at the top of the sexist familial hierarchy I am left wondering what I am meant to do. Do I give up riding with women as "compagnons of fortune" on brevets montagnards (the men generally climb much too quick for me, most women ditto!)? Am I no longer permitted to stop and offer assistance to a cyclist if it's the wrong sex? Am I even banned from going into a cycle shop with one of my daughters in case she asks me for advice (or just an opinion)? Where does it all stop? I can't even ask my wife for advice, she thinks that the sofa and the internal combustion engine are God's gifts and the bicycle is the work of Stan and I know where to put it! Only thing left to do - go for a ride, alone!

To be blunt, it's not about you. None of this is about you. I know it's hard -- and you are by no means alone in thinking this is, indeed, about you -- but it's not. There is no need to be dramatic.

This is not women saying they don't want to ride with any men, nor about women wanting to take over AUK and kick out all the men. This thread, believe it or not, is not anti-men. It is pro-women, but this is  not a zero sum game. We're not trying to take anything away from any of you.

Ride with women, just don't say something to them you wouldn't say to a man. Treat them as people, not exotic creatures whose main attributes are what is contained within their shorts.

Offer assistance to any cyclist. If she's a woman, and she says she's fine, believe her. Don't try to tell her she's doing it wrong, or grab the wheel off her because her delicate wee thumbs can't possibly put that tyre back on. If she accepts help, do as she asks, not what you think she needs.

Go into a cycle shop with your daughter. If the assistant addresses you, explain clearly that he should be talking to your daughter. If he fails to do so, take your daughter to another bike shop where they will treat her like the human being with agency she is.

It's not rocket science.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 19 May, 2021, 01:52:51 pm
I am left wondering what I am meant to do.

Don't be a dick.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 19 May, 2021, 02:09:02 pm
I am left wondering what I am meant to do.

Don't be a dick.

This is the succinct version.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Chris S on 19 May, 2021, 02:09:28 pm
I am left wondering what I am meant to do.

Don't be a dick.

Always sound advice.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 02:25:56 pm
To be blunt, it's not about you. None of this is about you.

You personally might not be (I can't find a quote) but by telling people that if they "are not part of the solution they are part of the problem" or something along those lines, that accusation makes it at least partly about them.
If you are going to accuse people of being sexist when they haven't actually done anything sexist then it is about them because they are naturally going to take exception to that accusation.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 19 May, 2021, 02:29:32 pm
Oh and I googled "flower arranging for men" didn't find any courses but did get lots of results along the lines of "interflora for men".

I generally avoid flowers, arranged or otherwise.  But once as a PSO I was paid to spend a couple of hours sitting in front of a lighting desk doing exam revision while a male flower-arrangist gave an exquisitely well-lit but extremely boring lecture/demonstration to a predominately, but certainly not exclusively, female audience.

I suspect it's more like nursing or primary teaching (with men a minority who are both regarded with suspicion and disproportionately rise to positions of authority) than sport.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 19 May, 2021, 02:33:55 pm

You personally might not be (I can't find a quote) but by telling people that if they "are not part of the solution they are part of the problem" or something along those lines, that accusation makes it at least partly about them.
If you are going to accuse people of being sexist when they haven't actually done anything sexist then it is about them because they are naturally going to take exception to that accusation.

You are taking a thread about one event, in the whole damn world, which is an audax for women only, and turning it into a personal accusation of sexist behaviour.

If you consider yourself to stand up for women's rights and equity, and even think you'd be up for saying, "Not cool," to a fellow man exhibiting sexist behaviour, then this is NOT about you.

If you look at generalised statements about sexism and self-identify as a target, then maybe you should ask yourself why that is.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 19 May, 2021, 02:37:46 pm
Oh and I googled "flower arranging for men" didn't find any courses but did get lots of results along the lines of "interflora for men".

I generally avoid flowers, arranged or otherwise.  But once as a PSO I was paid to spend a very dull couple of hours sitting in front of a lighting desk while a male flower-arrangist gave an exquisitely well-lit but extremely boring lecture/demonstration to a predominately, but certainly not exclusively, female audience.

I suspect it's more like nursing or primary teaching (with men a minority who are both regarded with suspicion and disproportionately rise to positions of authority) than sport.
That does not surprise me at all. Flower arranging, like make up and clothes design, is precisely the kind of thing which is mostly done by women at an amateur level but where the professionals would be men. Cooking is no longer quite the cannonical example of this, as it seems less and less uncommon for men to cook at home.

Personally, I like flowers, but I prefer them growing in the ground. This is why my garden is full of weeds. (And I don't think I'd like to play netball, though I'd give it a go; actually, I've enjoyed playing volleyball at an extremely basic, don't actually know the rules, level, so I'd probably like it. But not triathlon, cos I don't like swimming. I'd give a run-bike-athlon a go, as long as I could do it at TimC having a laugh attitude.)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 19 May, 2021, 03:00:12 pm
Quote
I suspect it's more like nursing or primary teaching (with men a minority who are both regarded with suspicion and disproportionately rise to positions of authority) than sport.
It's not really a sport thing though? It's more that suspicion as you say (from those already doing and from the outside*) and the lack of a way in, the lack of seeing yourself there already. It applies to sport, hobbies, careers, even places to live.

*Which could be in mutually contradictory ways.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: arabella on 19 May, 2021, 03:34:44 pm
That's just plain bad manners.  (Offering advice un-asked for.)  The sexism is in your mind.

No it isn't (in my mind).  It's yet another of the thousand cuts by which we women are all dying, as described earlier by QG.  I might be able to put a couple of occurrences of such things as bad manners, but when it's a regular stream then yes, it is sexism.  See the tech version explained over here: http://www.stemwomen.net/kristin-milton-death-by-thousand-cuts/

which is a good example of why there is, even now, a need to explain what life is like as a cycling woman "for the benefit of any men reading who don't have firsthand experience the cycling world as a woman"  [can't find original quote from above to attribute, sorry]
[also applies across other male dominated areas such as IT]


You personally might not be (I can't find a quote) but by telling people that if they "are not part of the solution they are part of the problem" or something along those lines, that accusation makes it at least partly about them.
If you are going to accuse people of being sexist when they haven't actually done anything sexist then it is about them because they are naturally going to take exception to that accusation.
are you familiar with the victim - bully - bystander  - defender model?  apply a modified version to the scenario we have here.  Ask yourself which of those 4 roles would be saying what you are saying etc.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 19 May, 2021, 04:01:27 pm
Ben was one of the passers by in the Good Samaritan story. He’s currently suing the publisher for besmirching his good name.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 05:21:56 pm
are you familiar with the victim - bully - bystander  - defender model?  apply a modified version to the scenario we have here.  Ask yourself which of those 4 roles would be saying what you are saying etc.

Not overly but I can imagine what it means. That if someone witnesses the victim of an ~ism that the right thing to do is to stick up for the victim not to just stand by and let it happen?
I detect an implication that anyone who isn't in the victim role can't possibly be in the defender role, or is automatically assumed not to be. If  I detect wrong then sorry. But that's how it sounds.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 19 May, 2021, 05:38:00 pm
are you familiar with the victim - bully - bystander  - defender model?  apply a modified version to the scenario we have here.  Ask yourself which of those 4 roles would be saying what you are saying etc.

Not overly but I can imagine what it means. That if someone witnesses the victim of an ~ism that the right thing to do is to stick up for the victim not to just stand by and let it happen?
I detect an implication that anyone who isn't in the victim role can't possibly be in the defender role, or is automatically assumed not to be. If  I detect wrong then sorry. But that's how it sounds.

I would genuinely like to know how you arrive at that conclusion.

Victim: someone who is being targeted by a bully.

Bully: someone who is being mean to another person, the victim.

Bystander: someone who observes the bully being mean to the victim, but does nothing about it.

Defender: someone who observes the bully being mean to the victim, and steps in to help the victim/stop the bully.

I am not familiar with the model but that is my inference about what these terms mean. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," means that if you are in a role other than the Victim, and it's not Defender, then you are part of the problem. In other words, not being a bully is not enough. Not exhibiting sexist behaviour is not enough. You also have to challenge sexist behaviour in others, because the kinds of men who exhibit sexist behaviours don't change when challenged by women.

If a woman is on a bike ride with 50 men, and all 50 of them are sexist/exhibit sexist behaviour, that is a huge problem.

If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.

I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 19 May, 2021, 06:20:34 pm
The unpleasant bike shopping experience and non female friendly bike fit would affect female triathletes too but does not seem to deter them as much.


And it does, but generally you're on the bike for less time, so it's less of a problem if it doesn't fit so great.

Quote
I did think about what people have said about equality of events and media coverage. It is true professional triathlon events are on same day, same distance and equal tv coverage. The most exciting to watch is the mixed super sprint relay which hopefully GB should win at Tokyo, but I am not convinced many people see tri on tv.

I've never watched Triathlon on TV except for a couple of GCN documentaries.

^^^^ This (speaking as a non-female humanoid). Although there are also quite a few male cyclos for whom the most essential part of the repair kit is the mobile phone to ring the wife/partner to be rescued when they break down! (and quite a few ladies who are very competent fixing their bikes when they need to, even following instructions when it's the first time - three of them happen to be my daughters!)

Yep, there are a lot of people who rely on phoning someone if their bike breaks. And generally if you have someone willing to help, there's nothing intrinsically harmful in that. Unfortunately not everyone is lucky enough for that. If I have a problem on my bike, there is one person and only one person who is getting me out of that, Me. Largely because so few of my friends have cars.

This is going to sound really petty, but you may want to think about the "non-female humanoid" description. Within TERF's there's a dog whistle term used by many which is "Adult human female". When you see that in someone's Bio on social media, they are a TERF. I'm sure you are not one, and I'm sure you don't want to be accidentally tarred with the brush of such things. But I digress

Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?
I read through your list of sexist behaviours thinking "well I don't do that", "nor that", "I don't do that either".
I get that the idea behind a women only audax might be simply that the only way to eliminate sexist men might be to eliminate all men, with the well-meaning intention of having a sexism-free event, but I think the point that guilt should stem from "doing" not from "being" needs to be made. My hope is that you accept that.

So earlier I made a short reply to this post. It was flippant, and rushed, as I was working and didn't have time for a full essay. Now you can have the essay.

When ever there is a big media stink because some man has done something horrible (Sarah Everard being a recent case), women step forward to share their similar experiences. A collective mourning and sharing of trauma. And then the MRAs come forward. People start replying #NotAllMen. And yes, it is true. Not all men are rapists. Not all men are murders, not all men are sexist shitbags. But, you know what, there's a fucking huge number of them that are. It's so fucking common there's a wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen

I should probably declare at this point. I am not anti men. Hell some of my best friends are men*. I've even been engaged to a man. The problem is. You know all those micro aggressions and shit experiences I detailed up thread? All of them are from men. I don't want to tar a whole gender with a bloody great big brush, but when you get to my age, and you have spent your life on the receiving end of shit behaviour that is universally from one group, you get pretty fucking jaded.

How do I know that the men who turn up to an event are going to be nice? How do I know that they aren't going to be sexist? Cos right up to the moment it happens, they appear like normal nice people. So given the option of an event that is just women, I'll take it. I'll feel safer. I'll feel more relaxed.

The experiences I detailed above are just those I've had in the context of cycling. It's important to remember that women are getting just as much crap in their every day lives. I recommend every man here go have a long read of the every day sexism project. See what it is we have to put up with every fucking day.

https://everydaysexism.com/

When they try to tell you how to fix a mechanical, even tho you are a perfectly competent mechanic who built the bike you're riding, as well as doing the occasional shift in a bike shop.

That's just plain bad manners.  (Offering advice un-asked for.)  The sexism is in your mind.

Yes it is bad manners.

But you know what "It's all in your mind". There's a term for that. Gaslighting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting). Saying "You're imagining it", or "you're the one making it sexist". That doesn't reassure, that doesn't make women feel welcome. That pushes away. Cos when you hear it enough, you start to believe it. If it is all in my mind, maybe the solution is for me to remove myself from the public space. I'll just stay at home. Won't be a problem there.

I have a lot of respect for you as a person. I am really disappointed to see this comment from you.

Quote
An all-female event (in a context such as this where segregation is not the norm) seems discriminatory to me, and, if it were an Audax UK event, would contravene the Regulations (8.2 "AUK events are open to all cyclists ...")

Yep. It's an interesting one within law too in many places. Cos ultimately positive discrimination is still discrimination. It's a really tough line to navigate.


So do you have a problem with that then? It is all men, then, as far as you're concerned? OK. As long as we know where we stand.  ::-)

Until proven that I can trust them. Yes. Because I can't tell, when the strange man walks up to me, is he just going to ask for directions? or is he about to want something more. Your hands form a fist. The fight or flight response is triggered. You're looking for the exits. Where is safe, what can I do. Because, YOU DO NOT KNOW. Hollywood and TV would have us believe that you can tell what a sexist shit looks like, you can spot them. But you know what. The only way you know that the person who is approaching you isn't going to attack you, is because you have walked away from the encounter unscathed.

https://www.upworthy.com/man-hitting-on-teen-shows-what-women-experience

This video did the rounds recently. She thought the guy wanted to take the chair away, he sits down, interrupts her life, and starts hitting on her. This is not a one off, many women experience it. I've had it, on trains, in cafes, in bars.

I am really sorry now that I started this thread. That is pretty rare.

Is it better to split the original announcement from the resulting discussion or lock it or delete it or what?

I'm sorry that women sharing their experiences makes you feel bad.

Perhaps we can split it off to POBI...

nah, sorry, don't need to bother from my perspective, sorry to drag it off line. Just fell into the trap as I often do of thinking I could get somewhere or get something across .... if QG replies and I feel the need to come back on it I'll do it via PM, was actually in two minds whether to anyway.

yeah, about that. Don't. It's fucking creepy. Don't PM. Either reply in the thread, or keep your thoughts to yourself.

I'd imagine some of the women most attracted to the idea of a women-only cycling event would be from conservative Muslim, Hindu or "similar" (this list is far from exhaustive) backgrounds, making it a good way to give a taste of long-distance cycling to people who feel excluded on a number of fronts.


Possibly, there is a women of colour cycling group, which is rather awesome. It was great to see that in Rapha's women's event thing a few months back they had a Hijab wearing woman in the mix. For a lot of people seeing someone who looks like them doing something can be all it takes to realise that maybe they can play too.

Quote
I also tried to imagine what would happen if, say, French Tandem, BenT and I wanted to start playing netball or maybe get into flower arranging.
Quote
the men's game is not recognised by the International Netball Federation (INF), and there is no England national seven-a-side team.

Time to start one... Sexism works both ways.

This reminds me a little of the Gymphobics women only gyms that have popped up in a number of places around here. My initial response was ‘is that actually legal?’ and the associated male bollox baggage, through to an understanding of why they exist. As a middle aged white educated male I gave up worrying about what others thought about my body a long time ago, but I can understand why women would want to avoid the letching and judgement of a gym full of testosteroned up blokes. I don’t think we’re nearly as discreet as we think we are in either behaviour. And that’s just the passive behaviours, there are far too many men who think it ok to show a ‘little lady’ how she should do something ‘properly’.

Yep, and it's even worse for fat women. I've seen and heard far to many people saying things like "Ugh, why are there fat people at the gym?"... If I actually used gym's, I would look at a women's only one.



My bold. What's stopping you? Amsterdam is not that far from Paris! If we are still restricted it will be postponed, not cancelled. You don't even have to be up to speed, the details (at least in french) say that the BRM delay is purely notional, if you take longer no-one will care provided you have a nice day out!

Simply: I don't have the spoons. My whole life right now is focused on a ride I'm doing in July from Brest to Greece. That is my focus.

Quote

For the rest of this post as a straight, white (relatively) able-bodied man (for which I have my parents to thank, not even my choice) and a father (of girls) so at the top of the sexist familial hierarchy I am left wondering what I am meant to do. Do I give up riding with women as "compagnons of fortune" on brevets montagnards (the men generally climb much too quick for me, most women ditto!)? Am I no longer permitted to stop and offer assistance to a cyclist if it's the wrong sex? Am I even banned from going into a cycle shop with one of my daughters in case she asks me for advice (or just an opinion)? Where does it all stop? I can't even ask my wife for advice, she thinks that the sofa and the internal combustion engine are God's gifts and the bicycle is the work of Stan and I know where to put it! Only thing left to do - go for a ride, alone!

I believe it's been said else where, but put simply: Just don't be a dick. If you see someone being a dick, call it out. Men get away with being shits because men let them get away with it. Men aren't scared that I'll tell them to fuck off when they direct a micro aggression at me. But if the man next to me calls them out, that puts the fear in them.

There's such a thing as being a good ally. And the best thing every man can do, is be a good ally. If men are unsure what to do, Julie S Lalonde is doing free online bystander intervention courses at the moment. They take an hour, maybe something can be learned.

I am left wondering what I am meant to do.

Don't be a dick.

Yep, That's pretty much it.


You personally might not be (I can't find a quote) but by telling people that if they "are not part of the solution they are part of the problem" or something along those lines, that accusation makes it at least partly about them.
If you are going to accuse people of being sexist when they haven't actually done anything sexist then it is about them because they are naturally going to take exception to that accusation.

Then perhaps try to do something about the men it is about... Be a good ally, don't be a dick. The bar is low.


That does not surprise me at all. Flower arranging, like make up and clothes design, is precisely the kind of thing which is mostly done by women at an amateur level but where the professionals would be men. Cooking is no longer quite the cannonical example of this, as it seems less and less uncommon for men to cook at home.

There's a strong history of this sort of thing. Traditionally weaving was a woman's job, it was slow, and laborious and done on a warp weighted loom. Then the horizontal two bar loom was invented, and productivity increased, at this point it became possible for one person to make enough cloth to support a whole family, and thus weaving changed from being a woman's job, to being a mans.


I am not familiar with the model but that is my inference about what these terms mean. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," means that if you are in a role other than the Victim, and it's not Defender, then you are part of the problem. In other words, not being a bully is not enough. Not exhibiting sexist behaviour is not enough. You also have to challenge sexist behaviour in others, because the kinds of men who exhibit sexist behaviours don't change when challenged by women.

If a woman is on a bike ride with 50 men, and all 50 of them are sexist/exhibit sexist behaviour, that is a huge problem.

If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.

I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

That's it. That's the message. What Ravenbait says. Every word of it. Nail. Head.

J



*Sorry, I had to say it...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 19 May, 2021, 06:31:43 pm
“I'm sorry that women sharing their experiences makes you feel bad.”

That isn’t the problem. I would have preferred that the announcement of something positive, the brevet itself, wasn’t drowned out by all the back and forth of people laying out and defending their positions and getting pissed off.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 19 May, 2021, 06:39:56 pm
If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.
One of the 49 other men steps up end expels the errant male. In assuming the woman needed a man to fight her battles he has been rather sexist.

A woman is now on a bike ride with 49 men and one of them has exhibited sexist behaviour...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 19 May, 2021, 06:45:29 pm
I'd imagine some of the women most attracted to the idea of a women-only cycling event would be from conservative Muslim, Hindu or "similar" (this list is far from exhaustive) backgrounds, making it a good way to give a taste of long-distance cycling to people who feel excluded on a number of fronts.


Possibly, there is a women of colour cycling group, which is rather awesome. It was great to see that in Rapha's women's event thing a few months back they had a Hijab wearing woman in the mix. For a lot of people seeing someone who looks like them doing something can be all it takes to realise that maybe they can play too.
I don't know that group* but I do know of Cycle Sisters, (https://www.cyclesisters.org.uk) which AIUI was formed as the women's counterpart to Brothers on Bikes. (https://www.brothersonbikes.cc) But whereas BoB is quite sporty (I vaguely know their SW organiser, he's a keen audaxer as it happens) Cycle Sisters seems to be about getting women on bikes in the first place. Which I think kind of makes the point (again) of why this thread exists (and yeah they could've called it Sisters on Bikes but thank goodness they didn't!)

Quote
Quote
I also tried to imagine what would happen if, say, French Tandem, BenT and I wanted to start playing netball or maybe get into flower arranging.
Quote
the men's game is not recognised by the International Netball Federation (INF), and there is no England national seven-a-side team.

Time to start one... Sexism works both ways.
Precisely. It would have to be in the style of "Netball Brothers" rather than "Brothers play Netball" cos...

*Ed: Presumably you're thinking of Black Cyclists Network?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 19 May, 2021, 07:27:24 pm
Would it have to be 100% female to work ? If it was 90% or 95% that would surely work too. You are going to encounter males in cafe stops etc.it might be an experience for the minority non female entrants too.

A very high percentage (even 100%) could be achieved by just picking an event and grabbing lots of places. This would not breach rule 27.4b on the international convention on audax discrimination.

Such an approach would also be far less effort than organising a specific event and now would be the time to do it as there is a cap on rider numbers.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: arabella on 19 May, 2021, 07:54:30 pm
If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.
One of the 49 other men steps up end expels the errant male. In assuming the woman needed a man to fight her battles he has been rather sexist.

A woman is now on a bike ride with 49 men and one of them has exhibited sexist behaviour...
My added bold

You seem to be assuming that the woman hasn't said anything.  Supposing your assumption is correct - why might that be?  (Clue: no-one ever listens)
But perhaps she has said something, how seriously is the sexist going to take her do you think? (Clue: see: sexist) So note:

Men aren't scared that I'll tell them to fuck off when they direct a micro aggression at me. But if the man next to me calls them out, that puts the fear in them.

There are far too many examples of women not being listened to/taken seriously.  It would be nice if that wasn't the case.  Until then, we need our allies to reinforce our message with a "not cool bro" type of thing.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mzjo on 19 May, 2021, 08:31:44 pm


Men aren't scared that I'll tell them to fuck off when they direct a micro aggression at me. But if the man next to me calls them out, that puts the fear in them.

I hate to have to disillusion you but I could call anyone out, they probably pay less attention to me than to you. I'm just too polite and soft (and I don't particularly want that to change, I don't care for the alternative!)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 19 May, 2021, 10:53:24 pm
If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.
One of the 49 other men steps up end expels the errant male. In assuming the woman needed a man to fight her battles he has been rather sexist.

A woman is now on a bike ride with 49 men and one of them has exhibited sexist behaviour...
My added bold

You seem to be assuming that the woman hasn't said anything.  Supposing your assumption is correct - why might that be?  (Clue: no-one ever listens)
But perhaps she has said something, how seriously is the sexist going to take her do you think? (Clue: see: sexist)

I am making no such assumption. Whether or not the victim has decided to take no action or has done something the second offender has decided to step up.

I shall christen* this the “bystander dilemma”. If you do nothing you are tacitly condoning the initial crime, if you come to the aid of the victim you are victimising them** further by assuming they need help.

I feel this is sufficient proof that all men are necessarily sexist, but the corollary is all women are sexist too. Finally some equality.

* other religions are available.
** other pronouns are available
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 11:32:19 pm
.
Quote
Don't [pm]. It's fucking creepy. Don't PM. Either reply in the thread, or keep your thoughts to yourself.

It’s only in a probably futile effort to have a discussion that isn’t polluted by the incessant virtue signalling.

Had a think and still cant work out why it’s “creepy”. You only want to have a discussion in an open forum so if it gets nasty the others can “save” you? Save you from .... what.... being spammed? its the internet you tool you can just block  ::-)

Quote
I should probably declare at this point. I am not anti men.

Well you could have fooled me.




Quote
...You know all those micro aggressions and shit experiences I detailed up thread? All of them are from men. I don't want to tar a whole gender with a bloody great big brush, but when you get to my age, and you have spent your life on the receiving end of shit behaviour that is universally from one group, you get pretty fucking jaded.

I think you’re far, far, far too angry for me to even know where to begin

Forgetting about men for a minute, have you stopped to think what percentage of women do you think are more angry than you?  ???
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2021, 11:42:10 pm

If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.


yes but at least 47 or 48 are probably either at least a km ahead or a km behind, so they’re not going to necessarily see it.   ::-)


Precisely. It would have to be in the style of "Netball Brothers" rather than "Brothers play Netball" cos...

I thought the term for “netball for men” was “basketball”?




 
If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.
One of the 49 other men steps up end expels the errant male. In assuming the woman needed a man to fight her battles he has been rather sexist.

A woman is now on a bike ride with 49 men and one of them has exhibited sexist behaviour...

total minefield  :D
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 20 May, 2021, 12:08:59 am
Does the panel think there's any hope of 'ordinary' audaxe(r)s learning from what women say they don't like about them and then changing accordingly? Because maybe it's not just the women that need to learn new skills and find out what more they're capable of...

As an occasional organiser, I would be interested to read about what women want from audaxes, and am open to learning.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 20 May, 2021, 12:21:23 am
You only want to have a discussion in an open forum so if it gets nasty the others can “save” you? Save you from .... what.... being spammed? its the internet you tool you can just block  ::-)

Maybe it’s so the bullying and patronising behaviour is out in the open for everyone to see.

Stop it, Ben, it’s really not on.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Karla on 20 May, 2021, 01:09:02 am
If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.
One of the 49 other men steps up end expels the errant male. In assuming the woman needed a man to fight her battles he has been rather sexist.

A woman is now on a bike ride with 49 men and one of them has exhibited sexist behaviour...
My added bold

You seem to be assuming that the woman hasn't said anything.  Supposing your assumption is correct - why might that be?  (Clue: no-one ever listens)
But perhaps she has said something, how seriously is the sexist going to take her do you think? (Clue: see: sexist)

I am making no such assumption. Whether or not the victim has decided to take no action or has done something the second offender has decided to step up.

I shall christen* this the “bystander dilemma”. If you do nothing you are tacitly condoning the initial crime, if you come to the aid of the victim you are victimising them** further by assuming they need help.

It's already got a name: White Knight Syndrome (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=White%20Knight%20Syndrome).  If you try to help, you're a chauvanist white knight who wants to show how big his dick is by rescuing damsels in distress, but hey, at least you aren't a bad ally. 

I also love how the only person to have actively insulted women on this thread is QG ranting about TERFs.  With friends like these eh?

I hope ACP have a successful ride!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 20 May, 2021, 05:55:45 am
About 6 years ago I was on an audax which had reached a huge climb in the Malverns. I stopped half way up to wait for my riding partner who was some way back. Some obese cunt on a £6k bike and fully testing the stretching capacities of his  full pro team lycra strip shouted "Dig in!" at me as he sweated and panted his way past. 6 years later and I still feel annoyance when I think about it.*

I would have thought the likelihood for a woman encountering  an annoying twat on an audax was high enough for it to happen 6 times a ride, rather than once in 6 years.

Similarly, I can fully understand why black people may want to hang out with other black people. They just don't want to have to listen to your shit whilst trying to enjoy themselves.

*Unfortunately for Mr Blobby  I was on a superlight carbon fixed gear (hence being further up the hill from riding partner). I took Blobby's advice and dug in 😈.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 20 May, 2021, 06:44:42 am
.
Quote
Don't [pm]. It's fucking creepy. Don't PM. Either reply in the thread, or keep your thoughts to yourself.

It’s only in a probably futile effort to have a discussion that isn’t polluted by the incessant virtue signalling.

Had a think and still cant work out why it’s “creepy”. You only want to have a discussion in an open forum so if it gets nasty the others can “save” you? Save you from .... what.... being spammed? its the internet you tool you can just block  ::-)

Quote
I should probably declare at this point. I am not anti men.

Well you could have fooled me.




Quote
...You know all those micro aggressions and shit experiences I detailed up thread? All of them are from men. I don't want to tar a whole gender with a bloody great big brush, but when you get to my age, and you have spent your life on the receiving end of shit behaviour that is universally from one group, you get pretty fucking jaded.

I think you’re far, far, far too angry for me to even know where to begin

Forgetting about men for a minute, have you stopped to think what percentage of women do you think are more angry than you?  ???

I'm sure there is a syndrome where people have an almost complete inability to empathise with other people's life experience, a total lack of ability to listen to and put themselves in the shoes of someone who isn't them. In extreme cases a denial that  if others experiences are different to their own, that they can even be true.

I guess if you are afflicted by that syndrome then you would be unable to comprehend those who are able to transcend their own lived experience into that of another group, and acknowledge them. You would just regard concern, empathy and understanding as "virtue signalling".
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Jaded on 20 May, 2021, 06:59:06 am
There’s being bonjed, and there’s being bonjed...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 20 May, 2021, 07:42:59 am
I'm sure there is a syndrome where people have an almost complete inability to empathise with other people's life experience, a total lack of ability to listen to and put themselves in the shoes of someone who isn't them. In extreme cases a denial that  if others experiences are different to their own, that they can even be true.

I guess if you are afflicted by that syndrome then you would be unable to comprehend those who are able to transcend their own lived experience into that of another group, and acknowledge them. You would just regard concern, empathy and understanding as "virtue signalling".

Another aspect of this syndrome appears to be denying that you are that kind of person while clearly exhibiting that kind of behaviour, and not even realise you're doing it.

That thing of denying and dismissing other people's lived experience is, I guess, very much part of the problem.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2021, 08:08:23 am
You only want to have a discussion in an open forum so if it gets nasty the others can “save” you? Save you from .... what.... being spammed? its the internet you tool you can just block  ::-)

Maybe it’s so the bullying and patronising behaviour is out in the open for everyone to see.

Stop it, Ben, it’s really not on.

Oh come on the woke bingo card’s nearly full now you only need somebody to squeeze in “you don’t get to” and “my truth” then it’ll be a full house  ::-)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 20 May, 2021, 09:04:13 am
Ben, to go back to the point where you blundered into this discussion:

This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading.

Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?

Have you worked out yet why this is totally missing the point? It's not about accusing you personally of anything, it's about making all men more aware of the kind of problems women face every day, which aren't visible to you from your position of privilege.

Despite this being explained to you several times over, you're continuing with this aggressive, condescending posturing. If you're really not the kind of person this is about, I don't know why you feel so threatened by it. It's not a good look.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 20 May, 2021, 10:38:18 am
You only want to have a discussion in an open forum so if it gets nasty the others can “save” you? Save you from .... what.... being spammed? its the internet you tool you can just block  ::-)

Maybe it’s so the bullying and patronising behaviour is out in the open for everyone to see.

Stop it, Ben, it’s really not on.

Oh come on the woke bingo card’s nearly full now you only need somebody to squeeze in “you don’t get to” and “my truth” then it’ll be a full house  ::-)

Racism, sexism, disablism, ageism, or indeed any other form of discrimination (ie. anything that doesn't affect, Ben) doesn't actually exist, does it Ben.

It's just woke nonsense.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 20 May, 2021, 10:59:35 am
If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.
One of the 49 other men steps up end expels the errant male. In assuming the woman needed a man to fight her battles he has been rather sexist.

A woman is now on a bike ride with 49 men and one of them has exhibited sexist behaviour...

Are you actually trolling now? Or are you looking for an excuse not to make an effort? Maybe you don't want to have that difficult conversation with the mate who's always making jokes about her indoors needing to be pacified before he can come out for a ride, as if the partner he chose to make a life with is some sort of Grendel, rather than an actual human who would also like to have a life and just wants him to step up and do his share of the adulting in the house? Or that one guy, not a mate, you just see him around, who's always "look at the arse on that, phwoar" when you pass a woman cyclist?

"Ooooh, noooooo. I can't possibly talk to that dude who keeps going up to that cyclist who happens to be a woman and asking her if she wants to share a sleeping bag with him later, for warmth hnurr hnurr hnurr. She might think I'm a bad ally for rescuing her, even though she's told him to fuck off several times. He might accuse me of White Knighting."

There have been several men on this thread trying their best to step in and explain to the more recalcitrant of their fellows what this is all about. Not once, NOT ONCE has any woman on this thread accused them of being a bad ally. (Thank you, gentlemen, I appreciate it.)

It's easy for sexist clungefumblers to dismiss things when a woman complains.

"She just can't take a joke. Is it that time of the month, dear? It's a compliment, you cow. You should be grateful. Anyway. What are you going to do about it, sweetcheeks? Eh?"

Not so easy when other men tell them it's not cool. It takes a real dick to continue when his peer group tells him he's being a dick.

Just saying.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 20 May, 2021, 11:15:20 am
.
Quote
Don't [pm]. It's fucking creepy. Don't PM. Either reply in the thread, or keep your thoughts to yourself.

It’s only in a probably futile effort to have a discussion that isn’t polluted by the incessant virtue signalling.

Did you think that anything I wrote was virtue signalling? Is that why you DMed me?

It's ironic, really, that the last time I left YACF it was because of sexist bullshit. That was years ago. Years.

Who might be more angry than QG? I don't know QG well enough to tell precisely how angry she is about all this kind of crap. I do know how angry I am.

I am absolutely fucking furious.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 20 May, 2021, 11:18:24 am
The unpleasant bike shopping experience and non female friendly bike fit would affect female triathletes too but does not seem to deter them as much.

And it does, but generally you're on the bike for less time, so it's less of a problem if it doesn't fit so great.

For me bike fit is more important on my TT/tri bike than my road bike even though I am on it for less time, not least because of the skimpy padding on tri suits and that you are locked into one position for much of the time.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Davef on 20 May, 2021, 11:24:16 am
If a women is on a bike ride with 50 men and only one of them is sexist/exhibits sexist behaviour, and the other 49 do nothing about it, therefore tacitly accepting that behaviour as appropriate for their peer group, that is also a problem.
One of the 49 other men steps up end expels the errant male. In assuming the woman needed a man to fight her battles he has been rather sexist.

A woman is now on a bike ride with 49 men and one of them has exhibited sexist behaviour...

Are you actually trolling now? Or are you looking for an excuse not to make an effort? Maybe you don't want to have that difficult conversation with the mate who's always making jokes about her indoors needing to be pacified before he can come out for a ride, as if the partner he chose to make a life with is some sort of Grendel, rather than an actual human who would also like to have a life and just wants him to step up and do his share of the adulting in the house? Or that one guy, not a mate, you just see him around, who's always "look at the arse on that, phwoar" when you pass a woman cyclist?

"Ooooh, noooooo. I can't possibly talk to that dude who keeps going up to that cyclist who happens to be a woman and asking her if she wants to share a sleeping bag with him later, for warmth hnurr hnurr hnurr. She might think I'm a bad ally for rescuing her, even though she's told him to fuck off several times. He might accuse me of White Knighting."

There have been several men on this thread trying their best to step in and explain to the more recalcitrant of their fellows what this is all about. Not once, NOT ONCE has any woman on this thread accused them of being a bad ally. (Thank you, gentlemen, I appreciate it.)

It's easy for sexist clungefumblers to dismiss things when a woman complains.

"She just can't take a joke. Is it that time of the month, dear? It's a compliment, you cow. You should be grateful. Anyway. What are you going to do about it, sweetcheeks? Eh?"

Not so easy when other men tell them it's not cool. It takes a real dick to continue when his peer group tells him he's being a dick.

Just saying.

Sam
Perhaps I was trolling. I personally would avoid the whole situation by riding alone. Interacting with other people seems to be ever more challenging.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 20 May, 2021, 11:29:43 am
The whole awkward situation can be avoided by not inviting any men along. Perhaps someone should try that?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: frankly frankie on 20 May, 2021, 01:08:17 pm
There is lived experience/ history behind most folk’s responses on this thread. For instance, FF’s partner Sheila is one of the unalloyed all-time greats of audaxing. She has accomplished more than almost anybody on this forum will ever do, regardless of gender. That sort of history will tend to affect how somebody views more tentative(?) people, ‘Why don’t they just ignore <this> and do it anyway?’

I also captained a mixed-sex hockey team for several years, playing 'friendly' matches in a loose-knit league in the West London area.  I don't recall any of us, or our various opponents, being less than robust either on or off the pitch.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: frankly frankie on 20 May, 2021, 01:13:48 pm
And pulling out the AUK rules as an argument why there shouldn't be an event to encourage women to participate? Really? Far far better to have a scant few women participating than do something to encourage more to give audax a try even if it means bending the rules for even one event a year? One event, out of all of them, where women might see themselves represented amongst the other riders and feel confident enough to take part even if they haven't done it before.

That's really quite sad.

Sam
If AUK choose to hide behind their rules and refuse to sanction a women-only event, there's no reason why those who wish to promote it couldn't start a women-only long-distance cycling club under British Cycling, gaining the insurance benefits as well as some helpful organisational tools ... I think that would be rather excellent.

I didn't mean to suggest AUK would frown on such an event - the one in question is not an AUK event anyway, but in point of fact several AUK Organisers do 'select' their entrants according to a variety of criterea (for example, favouring local entrants - or conversely in LEL's case, favouring overseas entrants) and AUK doesn't interfere in that.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 20 May, 2021, 01:57:57 pm
And pulling out the AUK rules as an argument why there shouldn't be an event to encourage women to participate? Really? Far far better to have a scant few women participating than do something to encourage more to give audax a try even if it means bending the rules for even one event a year? One event, out of all of them, where women might see themselves represented amongst the other riders and feel confident enough to take part even if they haven't done it before.

That's really quite sad.

Sam
If AUK choose to hide behind their rules and refuse to sanction a women-only event, there's no reason why those who wish to promote it couldn't start a women-only long-distance cycling club under British Cycling, gaining the insurance benefits as well as some helpful organisational tools ... I think that would be rather excellent.

I didn't mean to suggest AUK would frown on such an event - the one in question is not an AUK event anyway, but in point of fact several AUK Organisers do 'select' their entrants according to a variety of criterea (for example, favouring local entrants - or conversely in LEL's case, favouring overseas entrants) and AUK doesn't interfere in that.

I wasn't meaning to imply that AUK are ideologically against the idea of a women-only event, but if the rules as currently exist don't permit it (and of course that's another discussion), there is a way of achieving the end whilst still having insurance cover etc similar to AUK's provision. It wasn't a fully thought-through proposal, but if the demand was there the mechanism exists to serve it without waiting for a rule change at AUK.

ETA: Cycling UK has for some time run women-only events under the 'Breeze' banner. I believe they've been very popular, but I don't think they're aimed at the kind of rider who'd enjoy a 200km Audax.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 20 May, 2021, 02:01:44 pm
There have been several men on this thread trying their best to step in and explain to the more recalcitrant of their fellows what this is all about. Not once, NOT ONCE has any woman on this thread accused them of being a bad ally. (Thank you, gentlemen, I appreciate it.)

Yeah: noted and appreciated. Thank you to the relevant people who have done / are doing this.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: BrianI on 20 May, 2021, 02:22:41 pm
If an X only ride, increases the amount of X taking part, then that can only be a good thing? It's all about getting people cycling and enjoying events!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2021, 02:50:04 pm
Ben, to go back to the point where you blundered into this discussion:

This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading.

Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?

Have you worked out yet why this is totally missing the point? It's not about accusing you personally of anything, it's about making all men more aware of the kind of problems women face every day, which aren't visible to you from your position of privilege.

Despite this being explained to you several times over, you're continuing with this aggressive, condescending posturing. If you're really not the kind of person this is about, I don't know why you feel so threatened by it.

The post that I took offence to said “I realised I am preaching to the converted but  this post is for the benefit of any men reading “ and why I took offence was the implication that I need preaching to, and am thus implicitly guilty, simply by virtue of being a man.
Everything else seems to be an ad hominem attack stemming from that.

If it had said those men that think it acceptable to be sexist, rather than any men, it wouldn’t have stuck in the craw quite so much.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ChillyPanda on 20 May, 2021, 03:11:18 pm
If an X only ride, increases the amount of X taking part, then that can only be a good thing? It's all about getting people cycling and enjoying events!

Is it just all about getting people cycling and enjoying events?

Isn't the whole point of this thread about ensuring audax is accessible and inclusive to all, with everyone deserving equal respect?

If so, encouraging an X-only event would appear to run counter to that, perpetuating a them-and-us mentality.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 20 May, 2021, 03:25:40 pm
If half of the brevets in the calendar were women-only and the other half were mixed, perhaps you would have a reasonable argument. If a major event like PBP went women-only, that might be cause for such a complaint. I can't believe that all (or any) of this male handwringing is justified by a single women-only brevet (or even a few brevets) amongst the hundreds in the Audax calendar.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: arabella on 20 May, 2021, 03:27:26 pm
Ben, to go back to the point where you blundered into this discussion:

This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading.

Any men, or just men guilty of sexism?
Do I get to escape your scorn by not doing sexist behaviour, or am I always going to be a problem simply by being male?

Have you worked out yet why this is totally missing the point? It's not about accusing you personally of anything, it's about making all men more aware of the kind of problems women face every day, which aren't visible to you from your position of privilege.

Despite this being explained to you several times over, you're continuing with this aggressive, condescending posturing. If you're really not the kind of person this is about, I don't know why you feel so threatened by it.

The post that I took offence to said “I realised I am preaching to the converted but  this post is for the benefit of any men reading “ and why I took offence was the implication that I need preaching to, and am thus implicitly guilty, simply by virtue of being a man.
Everything else seems to be an ad hominem attack stemming from that.

If it had said those men that think it acceptable to be sexist, rather than any men, it wouldn’t have stuck in the craw quite so much.

sigh.  I'm not sure what it is about citoyen's reply that you don't yet get.
see also an elderly article about a female and male colleagues' experiences on swapping names for a week (http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/11/what-one-man-learned-about-sexism-from-swapping-names-with-his-female-colleague-for-a-week-6501842/)

or there's this cartoon which ime is still relevant today (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d0/0b/2d/d00b2d6c7369f475ea65f4ae8e31f195--punch-magazine-random-thoughts.jpg) and some words around it (https://teachtalks.co.uk/thats-an-excellent-suggestion-miss-triggs-perhaps-one-of-the-men-here-would-like-to-make-it/).


If an X only ride, increases the amount of X taking part, then that can only be a good thing? It's all about getting people cycling and enjoying events!

Is it just all about getting people cycling and enjoying events?

Isn't the whole point of this thread about ensuring audax is accessible and inclusive to all, with everyone deserving equal respect?

If so, encouraging an X-only event would appear to run counter to that, perpetuating a them-and-us mentality.

there's an assumption in there that it is currently accessible and inclusive to all
what does accessibility look like?
what does inclusiveness look like?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ChillyPanda on 20 May, 2021, 03:40:06 pm
Quote
there's an assumption in there that it is currently accessible and inclusive to all
what does accessibility look like?
what does inclusiveness look like?

Didn't suggest that it is currently accessible and inclusive to all. Perhaps this is what needs to be fixed in the UK audax scene.

My point was that events that restrict who may enter them does not foster inclusivity or equality. That's all.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 20 May, 2021, 03:42:07 pm

The post that I took offence to said “I realised I am preaching to the converted but  this post is for the benefit of any men reading “ and why I took offence was the implication that I need preaching to, and am thus implicitly guilty, simply by virtue of being a man.

(https://www.forbesindia.com/media/images/2020/May/img_132763_boislockerroombg.jpg)

If you read a whole thread where people are explaining how approximately half of the population suffers constant micro-aggressions (and nobody has even yet pointed out that a significant proportion of them have suffered actual sexual assault), and your focus is that you, personally, have been accused of perpetrating those micro-aggressions and are really pissed off about it, instead of setting aside any temptation to give in to fragile male ego and thinking, "Holy heck, that really blows goats for all these people, some of whom I might even ride with! I wonder how I can help stop all that crap from happening?" then you are behaving as if you are, at best, a bystander.

Do you watch Doctor Who? Have you seen Silence In The Library? There's a point where they are frantically checking shadows for the Vashta Nerada, and River asks, "All shadows?"

The Doctor replies, "Not all shadows, but any shadow."

Not all men. But any man. You either proactively demonstrate you are safe (monching down a chicken drumstick in 1.5s is the wrong test), or you will be lumped in with all the ones who aren't. Because sexist arseholes don't walk around with a tattoo on their heads saying, "DICK".

I can quite happily imagine a world in which there's an orbiting space laser watching all men, and as soon as it observes some trumpfangler yelling, "ALL RIGHT LOVE? NICE TITS!" it sends down a tightly focused beam to brand an indelible cock and balls on his forehead. But that's fantasy, not reality. In reality, any man I meet whom I have no reason to trust is a potential fuckwad, because so damn many of them are, and I shall behave accordingly.

As Atwood is often paraphrased: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."

Minor instances of sexist behaviour are not usually likely to lead to full-blown sexual assault or worse, but they are the first step on that road, and they put women on edge, as well as pissing them off. If you can't set your own sense of entitlement aside for a moment to empathise with the problem, I suggest the best course of action is to go and talk about something where you won't feel personally slighted by generalisations.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 20 May, 2021, 03:49:49 pm
Quote
there's an assumption in there that it is currently accessible and inclusive to all
what does accessibility look like?
what does inclusiveness look like?

Didn't suggest that it is currently accessible and inclusive to all. Perhaps this is what needs to be fixed in the UK audax scene.

My point was that events that restrict who may enter them does not foster inclusivity or equality. That's all.

If the demographic to which the event is restricted is currently excluded, then it's a way to include them, even when that exclusion is because, for instance, they are not made to feel welcome by the behaviour of current participants.

Equality is not the same as equity. You can foster equity by taking actions that appear to favour a particular demographic, but without those actions that demographic will not be able to participate to the same degree.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Jaded on 20 May, 2021, 03:49:53 pm
Quote
there's an assumption in there that it is currently accessible and inclusive to all
what does accessibility look like?
what does inclusiveness look like?

Didn't suggest that it is currently accessible and inclusive to all. Perhaps this is what needs to be fixed in the UK audax scene.

My point was that events that restrict who may enter them does not foster inclusivity or equality. That's all.

Except probably does, because it opens the activity up to people who might not take part. Riding an event is a challenge for many. Having to call out, ignore or worse, keep stchum about bad attitude and behaviour is also a challenge.

Someone who has been able to complete a ride without the latter challenge may well be in a better position to take on more challenges, such as more audaxes.

Or are you saying that because there’s a Women only Audax, Audax is less inclusive?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 20 May, 2021, 03:56:42 pm
The post that I took offence to said “I realised I am preaching to the converted but  this post is for the benefit of any men reading “ and why I took offence was the implication that I need preaching to, and am thus implicitly guilty, simply by virtue of being a man.

You've misunderstood what "preaching to the converted (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/to-preach-to-the-converted)" means. QG was replying to arabella when she said that, the point being that arabella doesn't need to be told, being a woman who has had similar experiences herself. It's a common idiom. She's not actually preaching to anyone.

"This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading" - I've highlighted the key word here. Rather than taking offence as a knee-jerk reaction, try to think about what you might learn from hearing about the experiences of women on audax events.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 20 May, 2021, 04:01:45 pm
If so, encouraging an X-only event would appear to run counter to that, perpetuating a them-and-us mentality.

But the them-and-us has already happened much further upstream in the systems that lead to various identities being disadvantaged/discriminated against/stigmatised or whatever in the first place. Activities for these identities are a response to divisions that have already been made and upheld for a long time. They're not creating them. Barriers to participation are already in place, just they might not be apparent to those trying to get past them.

I see activities for marginalised demographics as being an oasis of calm in which people can either just get on with what they're there to do for once and/or being a space in which we can learn about the way we can do things differently. They are a part of the work of stopping the perpetuation of divisions. If the status quo is broken for all but the narrow range of identities that the status quo normally caters for, then why would those who are marginalised want to be included in it? The task is to change the setting, not to change the people who are excluded from it. (Note I'm not saying "by it" - there will be things that can be changed within audax for sure, but the problems are symptomatic of much wider, pervasive inequalities.)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: BrianI on 20 May, 2021, 04:16:46 pm
If an X only ride, increases the amount of X taking part, then that can only be a good thing? It's all about getting people cycling and enjoying events!

Is it just all about getting people cycling and enjoying events?

Isn't the whole point of this thread about ensuring audax is accessible and inclusive to all, with everyone deserving equal respect?

If so, encouraging an X-only event would appear to run counter to that, perpetuating a them-and-us mentality.

Or the X only event, helps those X taking part to feel more confident doing the event, that they may in time take part in events which welcome X,Y, and Z?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 20 May, 2021, 04:23:38 pm

Or the X only event, helps those X taking part to feel more confident doing the event, that they may in time take part in events which welcome X,Y, and Z?

YES!!!!!

This!!!!

This is entirely the whole point of it.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 20 May, 2021, 04:34:05 pm
If an X only ride, increases the amount of X taking part, then that can only be a good thing? It's all about getting people cycling and enjoying events!

Is it just all about getting people cycling and enjoying events?

Isn't the whole point of this thread about ensuring audax is accessible and inclusive to all, with everyone deserving equal respect?

If so, encouraging an X-only event would appear to run counter to that, perpetuating a them-and-us mentality.
My take on this is that it's definitely a valid question philosophically and potentially a problem legally but obviously IANAL, and I haven't heard of any such challenges, so let's leave that to one side (possibly to be picked up by an actual lawyer at some point).

Having asked the question, my answer would be that the specific-group events are supplementary to the main, anyone-enters, calendar of events. They do not replace or take anything away, they add something extra.

Secondly, who are they adding this extra for? In this case, the idea is to add it for those who missed out, for one reason or another, all the previous times. To make a fairly stupid analogy: holding a "swimming with dolphins" session specially for people from California would be perpetuating the them-and-us mentality, hold a session specially for people from Mongolia and Kazakhstan is giving a chance to those who have never had it.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: sojournermike on 20 May, 2021, 06:26:21 pm
If an X only ride, increases the amount of X taking part, then that can only be a good thing? It's all about getting people cycling and enjoying events!

Is it just all about getting people cycling and enjoying events?

Isn't the whole point of this thread about ensuring audax is accessible and inclusive to all, with everyone deserving equal respect?

If so, encouraging an X-only event would appear to run counter to that, perpetuating a them-and-us mentality.
My take on this is that it's definitely a valid question philosophically and potentially a problem legally but obviously IANAL, and I haven't heard of any such challenges, so let's leave that to one side (possibly to be picked up by an actual lawyer at some point).

Having asked the question, my answer would be that the specific-group events are supplementary to the main, anyone-enters, calendar of events. They do not replace or take anything away, they add something extra.

Secondly, who are they adding this extra for? In this case, the idea is to add it for those who missed out, for one reason or another, all the previous times. To make a fairly stupid analogy: holding a "swimming with dolphins" session specially for people from California would be perpetuating the them-and-us mentality, hold a session specially for people from Mongolia and Kazakhstan is giving a chance to those who have never had it.

I’ve read through this thread and probably have little to add, but for various reasons I’ve spent a significant amount of time discussing some of the experiences described here with female colleagues. We’re also working hard to improve our (male) colleagues understanding of their female peers life experience. This appears to be just as important with the young as well as the older men.

Every situation mentioned by the female contributors, and some more serious (I probably mean dangerous), has been experienced by some or all of my female colleagues. None of them think it’s all men, but it is more of us than any of us males appear to think and, as said, it could be any man. Women have good reason not to give their trust easily or lightly and being wary is a very reasonable response - not a judgement on any individual man.

But, this isn’t about Audax. This affects every aspect of my colleagues lives. Some won’t go out for a run on their own, or feel the need to adopt strategies for their own safety. Others check under and around their car before getting in, and have their house keys ready long before they get to the door. Others have suffered stalking.

It’s not comfortable hearing it to be honest and, frankly, saddens me greatly. I can’t fix the world, but I can carry that awareness of how others - women - may feel when I speak with them. If I see a rider with a mechanical problem when I’m out of course I’ll offer help - make or female - but if they are a woman then I’ll always try to be as obviously non-threatening as possible and if they don’t need help that’s fine I’ll carry on.

And to be clear, I don’t think any of our contributors are suggesting that we shouldn’t engage as humans. I say ‘hello’ or wave at pretty well every cyclist and runner I see. I don’t get upset if they are lost in their own world or want to be alone, it’s just recognition of someone else moving outside. On the other hand, I will make a point of not tagging onto a female cyclist or runner - not because I think I’m dangerous, but because I don’t want them to be frightened for any reason. I know that if they don’t know me they have every reason to be wary and it’s not fair to create a situation where that’s a problem for them. 

Mike

PS When QG said ‘…benefit of men’ I thought her post read as exactly that - understanding what women often experience is a benefit and can help us empathise
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 20 May, 2021, 06:30:21 pm
And to be clear, I don’t think any of our contributors are suggesting that we shouldn’t engage as humans. I say ‘hello’ or wave at pretty well every cyclist and runner I see. I don’t get upset if they are lost in their own world or want to be alone, it’s just recognition of someone else moving outside. On the other hand, I will make a point of not tagging onto a female cyclist or runner - not because I think I’m dangerous, but because I don’t want them to be frightened for any reason. I know that if they don’t know me they have every reason to be wary and it’s not fair to create a situation where that’s a problem for them. 
Thanks, Mike. Honestly, this is music to my ears, and I genuinely feel a bit emotional (in a good way).

Thank you for being a decent soul.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 20 May, 2021, 06:33:05 pm
I say ‘hello’ or wave at pretty well every cyclist and runner I see.

I did a double take here, as I initially read this as "I say hello or wave at every pretty cyclist and runner I see."  ;D
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 20 May, 2021, 08:24:05 pm
I've avoided getting embroiled in the arguments, preferring to try and point out some positive experiences (and, by implication, the contrast between those and the more common experiences of many women I know), and suggest a way which women-only Audax-style rides could be arranged in UK.

But I've read and tried to understand what the women here have been saying because my club is trying to attract more women to cycle. One of the things we explicitly offer is women-only rides, and it's been quite popular. We're a small club, and the number of people we have actively participating isn't large so we aren't going to make a big dent in the problem, but I hope we are showing that there is an alternative to those traditional male-orientated, macho-infused clubs which are still very much the norm in the small towns local to me. One of those clubs was the reason my ex-wife pretty much gave up club cycling, for precisely the reasons expressed by women here. She is an extremely accomplished cyclist, who owns most of the QOMs round here and was in the fastest 10% of her club, of any gender. She's taken up rowing instead, which appears to be much more egalitarian than cycling is.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: BrianI on 20 May, 2021, 09:04:24 pm

Or the X only event, helps those X taking part to feel more confident doing the event, that they may in time take part in events which welcome X,Y, and Z?

YES!!!!!

This!!!!

This is entirely the whole point of it.

Sam

Agreed! Which makes it bizarre all the fuss it's creating...  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Redlight on 20 May, 2021, 09:09:52 pm
I am really sorry now that I started this thread. That is pretty rare.

Is it better to split the original announcement from the resulting discussion or lock it or delete it or what?

You seem to have removed the original post, which makes it hard for those of us coming late to this discussion to know what is being discussed  ???

That aside, I'd be all in favour of allowing women-only randonnees.  If you don't agree with women-only events, don't enter women only events. 

If that requires a change to AUK rules that can be made without undermining the need for our rules to align with ACP rules for validated events, I'd be happy to propose it, subject to 25 other members adding their backing.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 20 May, 2021, 09:22:05 pm
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119266.0

25 seconders needed for a motion is fucking stupid.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: CarlF on 20 May, 2021, 09:52:00 pm
To be blunt, it's not about you. None of this is about you.

You personally might not be (I can't find a quote) but by telling people that if they "are not part of the solution they are part of the problem" or something along those lines, that accusation makes it at least partly about them.
If you are going to accuse people of being sexist when they haven't actually done anything sexist then it is about them because they are naturally going to take exception to that accusation.

Coming into this thread and arguing the toss with the women pointing out some of the issues with a male-dominated environment? Definitely sexist.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2021, 10:11:40 pm

If you read a whole thread where people are explaining how approximately half of the population suffers constant micro-aggressions (and nobody has even yet pointed out that a significant proportion of them have suffered actual sexual assault), and your focus is that you, personally, have been accused of perpetrating those micro-aggressions and are really pissed off about it, instead of setting aside any temptation to give in to fragile male ego and thinking, "Holy heck, that really blows goats for all these people, some of whom I might even ride with! I wonder how I can help stop all that crap from happening?" then you are behaving as if you are, at best, a bystander.

Do you watch Doctor Who? Have you seen Silence In The Library? There's a point where they are frantically checking shadows for the Vashta Nerada, and River asks, "All shadows?"

The Doctor replies, "Not all shadows, but any shadow."

Not all men. But any man. You either proactively demonstrate you are safe (monching down a chicken drumstick in 1.5s is the wrong test), or you will be lumped in with all the ones who aren't. Because sexist arseholes don't walk around with a tattoo on their heads saying, "DICK".

I can quite happily imagine a world in which there's an orbiting space laser watching all men, and as soon as it observes some trumpfangler yelling, "ALL RIGHT LOVE? NICE TITS!" it sends down a tightly focused beam to brand an indelible cock and balls on his forehead. But that's fantasy, not reality. In reality, any man I meet whom I have no reason to trust is a potential fuckwad, because so damn many of them are, and I shall behave accordingly.

As Atwood is often paraphrased: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."

Minor instances of sexist behaviour are not usually likely to lead to full-blown sexual assault or worse, but they are the first step on that road, and they put women on edge, as well as pissing them off. If you can't set your own sense of entitlement aside for a moment to empathise with the problem, I suggest the best course of action is to go and talk about something where you won't feel personally slighted by generalisations.

Sam

Ok fair enough...
But. It may not have been you personally but someone claimed they “aren’t anti men”.
But if you’re taking the assumption that any man is a sexist until he proves that he isn’t, then you are anti men. That may be justified, and rational, based on your life experiences - but that’s the truth of it.
Anyone who’s demonstrably anti-men in real life, or anti- anything else that I am, whether rationally or irrationally, I think in practice I would simply tend to largely avoid them.

I empathise with you, for any negative behaviour you’ve encountered from men, maybe not empathise as that implies I’d have to have experienced it myself which I haven’t, more sympathise, but I don’t feel the need to prove that to anyone, which may explain my lack of posts supporting you, not that I don’t care. :shrug:

Remember a social media forum like this is completely different to real life, as well, as people on here are keyboard warriors going looking for an argument/debate, whereas in real life people want to get on with each other
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: perpetual dan on 20 May, 2021, 10:22:27 pm
Somewhere up there there was a “it’s just one ride” comment. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that more than one of these events would be a good idea. Really, it isn’t taking any bike rides away from me.

Also, I do think it promotes equity, of “giving it a go” at least. A bit like with diversity in the boardroom, achieving it is helped by a broad base. Pretty often that means doing something different to before.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ruthie on 20 May, 2021, 10:22:49 pm

Or the X only event, helps those X taking part to feel more confident doing the event, that they may in time take part in events which welcome X,Y, and Z?

YES!!!!!

This!!!!



This is entirely the whole point of it.

Sam

This!   Also, that thing acknowledging men who get it?  That.

I haven’t joined in because I’m desperately tired of being gaslighted about shit that’s happened ALL MY LIFE and I’m anaemic and hypothyroidy and sad and life’s too short.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2021, 10:23:04 pm

"This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading" - I've highlighted the key word here. Rather than taking offence as a knee-jerk reaction, try to think about what you might learn from hearing about the experiences of women on audax events.
Why only men then? Why can’t other women who haven’t experienced sexist bullying benefit from learning about the experience of the ones who have?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: perpetual dan on 20 May, 2021, 10:33:12 pm

"This post is mostly for the benefit of any men reading" - I've highlighted the key word here. Rather than taking offence as a knee-jerk reaction, try to think about what you might learn from hearing about the experiences of women on audax events.
Why only men then? Why can’t other women who haven’t experienced sexist bullying benefit from learning about the experience of the ones who have?
I’m pretty sure that women talk to other women about this stuff already. In any case, they’re in a different position to the men in this.

Also, women that are old enough to ride without a parent and haven’t experienced sexism will be a rather small niche. But I suspect you knew that really.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Croft on 20 May, 2021, 10:33:44 pm
Why can’t other women who haven’t experienced sexist bullying benefit from learning about the experience of the ones who have?

You know that bit about privilege posted upthread? You may wish to (re)read it if you really think sexist bullying is something only ~some~ women experience.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Lightning Phil on 20 May, 2021, 10:38:39 pm
There’s some very useful insights shared by the women on this thread.

In particular QGs comment that every time she encounters a man she doesn’t know, she’s not sure whether they are a threat or not. Whether they can be trusted or not.

I am a friendly sort and because I consider myself a sensitive unthreatening sort, when I catch up a woman on an audax,  I’ve never thought too much about whether she might consider me a threat or feel uncomfortable in my presence.  I usually ride with others for a bit then move ahead, drop back, or stop for something. So I rarely ride with others for long periods.   I like to think I pick up quickly if someone doesn’t want my company and happily drop back or go on ahead.

But I’ll be more mindful of what I’ve read here.  If I catch someone on an audax and fancy some company I usually ask the rider if they’d like company and respect any response good naturedly. 

Is there more I could do?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2021, 11:04:00 pm
Why can’t other women who haven’t experienced sexist bullying benefit from learning about the experience of the ones who have?

You know that bit about privilege posted upthread? You may wish to (re)read it if you really think sexist bullying is something only ~some~ women experience.
Alright, for “haven’t experienced” read “haven’t experienced it as much” or  “are slightly less angry about it”
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ruthie on 20 May, 2021, 11:20:10 pm
There are women who never spend any time with men who aren’t family members. They are utterly scandalised, thrilled, appalled at me having male friends and going riding bikes when men will be there. I’m regarded as insane for walking for transport in broad daylight because they’d never dare because it’s not safe.  And am I not scared, riding a bike on the road. And I go to places on my own?! Like, the pictures and to church?! They would never do that! Too scary!

It’s really fucking complicated being a woman.

But I still love spending time with women because I love women and they bloody rock.  Except for those other women, the ones I don’t like. And I love my male friends too, and my brother, and my son. And my daughter.

Look, things don’t look the same for everyone. And an all-women event makes some women comfortable enough to turn up.

What’s wrong with that?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2021, 11:27:13 pm
There are women who never spend any time with men who aren’t family members. They are utterly scandalised, thrilled, appalled at me having male friends and going riding bikes when men will be there. I’m regarded as insane for walking for transport in broad daylight because they’d never dare because it’s not safe.  And am I not scared, riding a bike on the road. And I go to places on my own?! Like, the pictures and to church?! They would never do that! Too scary!

It’s really fucking complicated being a woman.

But I still love spending time with women because I love women and they bloody rock.  Except for those other women, the ones I don’t like. And I love my male friends too, and my brother, and my son. And my daughter.

Look, things don’t look the same for everyone. And an all-women event makes some women comfortable enough to turn up.

What’s wrong with that?
Wasn’t sure whether that’s a rhetorical question, but just for the record I have NO problem whatsoever with women only events, do it, go for your life
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ruthie on 20 May, 2021, 11:44:57 pm
What?

Was that about you, Ben?!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 21 May, 2021, 12:30:46 am
There’s some very useful insights shared by the women on this thread.

Thanks for listening  :thumbsup:


Is there more I could do?

Here are a few things I've either found useful for me or things others have found useful...


Upthread we mentioned calling out bad behaviour when you see it. This really is key. Also hard. I guess bystander training is the way into getting tips for that. I think someone linked to a resource earlier. Maybe some people can nudge workplaces to provide some - we're pushing for that at the University I'm at. Bonus: works for sexism, racism, homophobia...!

Learning how to spot what things need calling out (kind of a pre-requisite for the above).

Tamika Butler has spoken about the Actor > Ally > Accomplice spectrum. See video here: https://abc7news.com/allyship-ways-to-be-an-ally-how-define/6314460/ There are some nice distinctions here, as well as reassurance that you won't get it right every time.

Consent. This has been mentioned in the thread a few times when people spoke of offering help. It's also been omitted plenty of times when people have spoken of giving help. It might need to be explicit (think advice or repair help), it might only need eye contact and a raised eyebrow (think intervening).

The Women's New Forest Off Road Club have been doing a lot of work recently to try and head off the fears of potential new riders. This post got a lot of love: https://www.instagram.com/p/COH5x0yF8ej/


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Auntie Helen on 21 May, 2021, 06:07:03 am
Why can’t other women who haven’t experienced sexist bullying benefit from learning about the experience of the ones who have?

You know that bit about privilege posted upthread? You may wish to (re)read it if you really think sexist bullying is something only ~some~ women experience.
Alright, for “haven’t experienced” read “haven’t experienced it as much” or  “are slightly less angry about it”
I don’t think that’s any of us.

We all experience sexism.

I don’t work in such a traditionally male industry as, say, QG, but in my hobby of cycling I experienced sexism often when in bike shops. I bought a car last week too, accompanied by my chap - you can guess with whom the salesman did all the discussion.

We are all angry about it.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: rogerzilla on 21 May, 2021, 06:11:19 am
Two longstanding members have left the forum in the last 24 hours after being involved in this thread   I'm not saying the two facts are directly related, but before you post, think about the kind of forum you want.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ben T on 21 May, 2021, 08:34:13 am
What?

Was that about you, Ben?!
:( :( :demon:
It DOESN’T MATTER whether it was “about me”. You asked a question, I chose to answer it.
You then chose to make me feel bad at having apparently spoken out of place by parroting out this “it’s not about you” cliché.
My reply wasn’t offensive, it wasn’t sexist, it wasn’t insulting, it wasn’t rude. It was merely stating my opinion - as I thought I was entitled to do. Clearly not. But you chose to take offence to it anyway. With an ad hominem, withering put down that isn’t intended to even be able to be debated or come back on. The only purpose of your post is not to make a point but to make yourself look good and me to look bad.

Two longstanding members have left the forum in the last 24 hours after being involved in this thread   I'm not saying the two facts are directly related, but before you post, think about the kind of forum you want.

The above ^^^ is the epitome of why this already isn’t the kind of forum I want.
People don’t want to have a debate, they just want to posture, preen their egos, make themselves look good and denigrate, rather than engage with, anybody they perceive as “on the wrong side”.
I’m sure they’re not like that in real life - it’s just what social media turns people into keyboard warriors.
It’s become too much like twitter.
For what it’s worth, the moderation seems either non existent or unfair as well - on the odd occasion I’ve used the report post button (for a post using directed insults with swearing, not in this thread) it’s as far as I can tell been ignored, and no ones replied
So that’s why I’m also deleting my account. If I want to read without posting on the Audax forum I can still do so anonymously, and if I want to ask/answer cycling related matters I’ll create a new, anonymous, user name but won’t post anything opinionated.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: BrianI on 21 May, 2021, 08:36:16 am
Two longstanding members have left the forum in the last 24 hours after being involved in this thread   I'm not saying the two facts are directly related, but before you post, think about the kind of forum you want.

That is sad. Hopefully they will return to the forum.

Even if we disagree with another's views, we should be excellent to each other.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 21 May, 2021, 08:49:13 am
It DOESN’T MATTER whether it was “about me”. You asked a question, I chose to answer it.
You then chose to make me feel bad at having apparently spoken out of place by parroting out this “it’s not about you” cliché.

You've been determined to make this about you from the moment you waded into this discussion.

As for "posturing", that is the perfect word to describe the way you have chosen to take offence rather than make an effort to understand and engage with what is actually being said. It's all deeply disappointing.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 21 May, 2021, 09:02:29 am
Two longstanding members have left the forum in the last 24 hours after being involved in this thread   I'm not saying the two facts are directly related, but before you post, think about the kind of forum you want.

I am so sorry to hear that. I hope they'll come back eventually.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 21 May, 2021, 09:06:18 am

You seem to have removed the original post, which makes it hard for those of us coming late to this discussion to know what is being discussed  ???


It was just a post announcing a women-only audax (not in the UK, nor run by AUK).

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119266.0

Which, of course, immediately attracted the "why do we need one of those, it's divisive" response. Cue... *waves hand vaguely with a sense of frustrated despondency" ...all this.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 21 May, 2021, 09:16:29 am
The above ^^^ is the epitome of why this already isn’t the kind of forum I want.
People don’t want to have a debate, they just want to posture, preen their egos, make themselves look good and denigrate, rather than engage with, anybody they perceive as “on the wrong side”.
I’m sure they’re not like that in real life - it’s just what social media turns people into keyboard warriors.

I don't want you to leave, Ben. I don't want anyone to leave. The thing is, though, if you go back and read all your posts on this thread, have you tried to engage with the subject matter? I'd be super interested in hearing your thoughts on how we could make audax (or any cycling) more welcoming for women, or actions you take to make yourself less potentially threatening to the women you meet (on bikes or otherwise). I don't think we've seen anything like that from you.

There are some men here modelling excellent ways to be considerate and thoughtful, and I appreciate their efforts.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: rogerzilla on 21 May, 2021, 09:26:42 am
Two longstanding members have left the forum in the last 24 hours after being involved in this thread   I'm not saying the two facts are directly related, but before you post, think about the kind of forum you want.
Five now.  Is this thread doing any good?  If not, we'll lock it and bury it.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 21 May, 2021, 09:56:32 am
I think this thread has done an excellent job in illustrating what is the exact motivation for women-only cycling activities and what women feel in these contexts (the original questions). It's also made very apparent the behaviours that contribute to this. As a bonus, we now know where various forum members stand on such matters and can adjust our interactions with them accordingly.

To lock the thread just as some people are starting to seriously consider what steps they can take towards initiating change would feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth to me, decreasing likelihood of further discussion on the subject and indicating a disregard for the need for change.

We've managed to have some useful discussion despite persistent, textbook trolling (in the open and in our PMs). Whilst we don't know why some people have left, if you're inclined to relate it to the tone and content of this thread then please spare a minute to consider what it's like to have to deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis without the option of deleting an account and going incognito.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: BrianI on 21 May, 2021, 10:43:01 am
I don't think locking burying the thread will be helpful.  Perhaps an admin / moderator reminder for people to be awesome to each other wouldn't go amiss, but overall I think this thread has raised some important points.

As I said, I have no issues with a Women Only Audax event, if it encourages Women to take part in Audaxes, then in time they may feel comfortable enough to take part in a mixed event.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 21 May, 2021, 10:49:10 am
I find it sad that people have left. (not read all of thread)

Personally I find the forum very informative. Multiple times I have asserted something and had it explained to me what I got wrong. Useful, I learnt something.

Of the posts from Ravenbait, QG, Nikki and others, there is only one thing I'd dispute. Their posts discussed men being sexist, particularly in a microaggressive putdown way. It isn't just men who are guilty of this (although they are audibly guilty of the vast, vast majority of these offences). Women also do it and it is a particular problem in the workplace (mostly because it is harder to detect). When women do this (and teens), it is often a double-edged putdown; they doubt a woman's ability to do something. That is another way of saying they doubt themselves.

To be a defender doesn't have to mean confronting the attacker. It can mean supporting the victim. Blank the attacker's words, engage the victim with supporting and interested communication. In a meeting, this can mean something like "I'm interested in what you just said, can you expand on it?".



Slight digression, but "Black Girls Hike" is a rather fab group, I follow them on facebook. Would something similar benefit cycling?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 21 May, 2021, 11:36:52 am

If any of the burned accounts are related to people responding to problematic behaviour with a quiet, polite word off-thread calling it out, then those people have my gratitude and respect for stepping up.

To be a defender doesn't have to mean confronting the attacker. It can mean supporting the victim. Blank the attacker's words, engage the victim with supporting and interested communication. In a meeting, this can mean something like "I'm interested in what you just said, can you expand on it?".

I agree with this.

It isn't just men who are guilty of this (although they are audibly guilty of the vast, vast majority of these offences). Women also do it and it is a particular problem in the workplace (mostly because it is harder to detect). When women do this (and teens), it is often a double-edged putdown; they doubt a woman's ability to do something. That is another way of saying they doubt themselves.

I partially agree with this. I've never really had a proper job (apart for that one time working for the MOD, but I'm not allowed to talk about that), but over the last year or so I've heard a lot more women - and in particular Black women - talking about workplace dynamics and I wonder to what extent this might be influenced by feeling the need to go along with the dominant office cultures and male behaviours that value dominance.

Be excellent to each other, folks. Please.


Slight digression, but "Black Girls Hike" is a rather fab group, I follow them on facebook. Would something similar benefit cycling?

I think they certainly have an immediate benefit for some people within (or standing tentatively on the edge of) cycling. I'm learning a lot from those sorts of accounts too, so hopefully I can convert that to some positive change too.

What do you particularly find fab about it, mrcharly?

I'm not on facebook, but I know there are initiatives such as Black Girls Do Bike, Cycle Sisters, JoyRiders, Women in Tandem, Lakes Gravel Gang, Lancaster Women's Cycling Group, Women of Colour Cycling Collective, Diversity in Cycling Alliance, Spoke Out Derby, Nuhiha, Black Muslim Women Bike. Probably folks who are interested can find them on their social media platform of choice and spider out from there.

There's some valid criticism of 'more women in cycling' campaigns that only recognise white women in cleats, so I think it's important to recognise that there are a lot of women also benefiting a lot from systems of privilege and to make efforts to listen to those that are not.

There are 3 days left on this rather excellent humble bundle of titles from Microcosm Publishing should anyone want some interesting reading: https://www.humblebundle.com/books/bikes-microcosm-books

I'm also currently reading Tiffany Lam's masters dissertation on the gender gap and other inequalities in cycling in London. Available to download for free here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bb49008aadd34716d6ec6e5/t/5bb4ac7cc83025a8d2d11c67/1538567298713/Cycling+London+-+An+Intersectional+Feminist+Perspective.pdf


I realise these references are not audax specific, but I think this is all part of the same challenge.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 21 May, 2021, 11:49:25 am
This thread seems to me a little like statue toppling in the context of BLM or racism generally: an act that is in itself rather meaningless (it's just a lump of rock!) but crystalises opinion and knowledge for those otherwise not involved. Certainly as a resident of Bristol I knew a few things about Colson but learnt a lot more about his statue in particular and why some people get so angry about it (it's as much about the people who put it up as Colson himself; I didn't realise the statue was put up closer in time to today than Colston's death). So a simple bike ride can, perhaps unwittingly and unintentionally, act as a means for those not (seemingly) affected to gain some realisation of others' experiences and their part in them.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 21 May, 2021, 12:05:33 pm

Of the posts from Ravenbait, QG, Nikki and others, there is only one thing I'd dispute. Their posts discussed men being sexist, particularly in a microaggressive putdown way. It isn't just men who are guilty of this (although they are audibly guilty of the vast, vast majority of these offences). Women also do it and it is a particular problem in the workplace (mostly because it is harder to detect). When women do this (and teens), it is often a double-edged putdown; they doubt a woman's ability to do something. That is another way of saying they doubt themselves.

I, personally, have not witnessed any women on a cycle ride doubting the ability of other women. This does not mean it doesn't happen, just that I have not seen it (absence of evidence etc). I would be incredibly disappointed if I did, and would call it out immediately.

Quote
To be a defender doesn't have to mean confronting the attacker. It can mean supporting the victim. Blank the attacker's words, engage the victim with supporting and interested communication. In a meeting, this can mean something like "I'm interested in what you just said, can you expand on it?".

100% agree, and I apologise if I've inadvertently implied that this is not the case.

Quote
Slight digression, but "Black Girls Hike" is a rather fab group, I follow them on facebook. Would something similar benefit cycling?

I have not heard of them but shall look them up, thanks!

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: rafletcher on 21 May, 2021, 12:43:30 pm
Two longstanding members have left the forum in the last 24 hours after being involved in this thread   I'm not saying the two facts are directly related, but before you post, think about the kind of forum you want.
Five now.  Is this thread doing any good?  If not, we'll lock it and bury it.

I think (from a personal perspective at least) it's been a useful thread.  Whether the Audax board is the best place for it now I'm not so sure, it certainly has the feel of a POBI topic, but relocation may change the tone of discussion for the worse I fear.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 21 May, 2021, 12:50:34 pm

If any of the burned accounts are related to people responding to problematic behaviour with a quiet, polite word off-thread calling it out, then those people have my gratitude and respect for stepping up.

To be a defender doesn't have to mean confronting the attacker. It can mean supporting the victim. Blank the attacker's words, engage the victim with supporting and interested communication. In a meeting, this can mean something like "I'm interested in what you just said, can you expand on it?".

I agree with this.

It isn't just men who are guilty of this (although they are audibly guilty of the vast, vast majority of these offences). Women also do it and it is a particular problem in the workplace (mostly because it is harder to detect). When women do this (and teens), it is often a double-edged putdown; they doubt a woman's ability to do something. That is another way of saying they doubt themselves.

I partially agree with this. I've never really had a proper job (apart for that one time working for the MOD, but I'm not allowed to talk about that), but over the last year or so I've heard a lot more women - and in particular Black women - talking about workplace dynamics and I wonder to what extent this might be influenced by feeling the need to go along with the dominant office cultures and male behaviours that value dominance.

Be excellent to each other, folks. Please.


Slight digression, but "Black Girls Hike" is a rather fab group, I follow them on facebook. Would something similar benefit cycling?

I think they certainly have an immediate benefit for some people within (or standing tentatively on the edge of) cycling. I'm learning a lot from those sorts of accounts too, so hopefully I can convert that to some positive change too.

What do you particularly find fab about it, mrcharly?

I'm not on facebook, but I know there are initiatives such as Black Girls Do Bike, Cycle Sisters, JoyRiders, Women in Tandem, Lakes Gravel Gang, Lancaster Women's Cycling Group, Women of Colour Cycling Collective, Diversity in Cycling Alliance, Spoke Out Derby, Nuhiha, Black Muslim Women Bike. Probably folks who are interested can find them on their social media platform of choice and spider out from there.

There's some valid criticism of 'more women in cycling' campaigns that only recognise white women in cleats, so I think it's important to recognise that there are a lot of women also benefiting a lot from systems of privilege and to make efforts to listen to those that are not.

There are 3 days left on this rather excellent humble bundle of titles from Microcosm Publishing should anyone want some interesting reading: https://www.humblebundle.com/books/bikes-microcosm-books

I'm also currently reading Tiffany Lam's masters dissertation on the gender gap and other inequalities in cycling in London. Available to download for free here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bb49008aadd34716d6ec6e5/t/5bb4ac7cc83025a8d2d11c67/1538567298713/Cycling+London+-+An+Intersectional+Feminist+Perspective.pdf


I realise these references are not audax specific, but I think this is all part of the same challenge.

Black girls hike has a terrific energy (possibly down to the founder, who interviewed very well on the radio).
The whole ethos and organisation is very welcoming to people of any experience, any fitness level. It started as a small local thing and inside of about 2years has spread (not dissimilar to parkrun). Local groups all over.

It isn't just men who are guilty of this (although they are audibly guilty of the vast, vast majority of these offences). Women also do it and it is a particular problem in the workplace (mostly because it is harder to detect). When women do this (and teens), it is often a double-edged putdown; they doubt a woman's ability to do something. That is another way of saying they doubt themselves.

I partially agree with this. I've never really had a proper job (apart for that one time working for the MOD, but I'm not allowed to talk about that), but over the last year or so I've heard a lot more women - and in particular Black women - talking about workplace dynamics and I wonder to what extent this might be influenced by feeling the need to go along with the dominant office cultures and male behaviours that value dominance.
I suspect you have hit the nail on the head here. No evidence, just observation.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: De Sisti on 21 May, 2021, 02:09:25 pm
Slight digression, but "Black Girls Hike" is a rather fab group, I follow them on facebook.
Very enjoyable listening to one of the members of Black Girls Hike speak with Clare Balding on
Radio Four's Rambling programme on Saturday 15th May.


Would something similar benefit cycling?
Black cyclists ride audaxes, perhaps?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 21 May, 2021, 02:14:56 pm
Black girls hike has a terrific energy (possibly down to the founder, who interviewed very well on the radio).
The whole ethos and organisation is very welcoming to people of any experience, any fitness level. It started as a small local thing and inside of about 2years has spread (not dissimilar to parkrun). Local groups all over.

On a cycling note, honourable mention to Wheels For Wellbeing and - particularly in the last year or so - PRiDE OUT, for doing similarly.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Big Saxon on 21 May, 2021, 02:51:46 pm
I can only comment on behalf of myself and The Straggler, based on what we tend to see in the East of England, which I feel has an inclusive approach to anyone who wants to ride an event, whatever their stated sex, gender, species, race, body type or sexual orientation. For our part we have German and Chinese heritage, in my case there were obvious prejudices when I was a child in the 1950's in England and also 110 kg bodybuilders do not look very graceful climbing, so I get all the patronising comments that you would expect on sportives, but less so on Audaxes. We may not look like elite athletes, but Raymond has featured in the UK top ten for points, and myself top forty, so we are no mugs. We are Lanternes Rouge because we enjoy the whole experience, and engage with everybody on the ride, particularly those working in the cafes that serve us.

Which leads on to our relationship with women riders. To be fair most are faster than us, so no alpha male problems there. Those that do find themselves close to the twilight zone often ask if they can ride with us as experienced riders, and enjoy the experience, including the many stories that are told. I feel that too often we look for divisions where none exist, we are all there to enjoy the challenge. Simplistic I know, but we are simple people with no personal agendas. I also coach women's football, they kick the ball as hard, they hit you in the tackle, and are footballers just the same, but it is a good discipline to avoid typical male banter, which is at best infantile, and at worst offensive to women. At Team MK my D Group is almost entirely women, they enjoy my leadership and their own companionship, we are all one unit.

There are no easy solutions to increase participation levels, but I think it starts with behaviours on both sides of a perceived divide, and understanding that perhaps we are not really that different after all when it comes to this particular field of sport.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 21 May, 2021, 03:00:49 pm
We are Lanternes Rouge because we enjoy the whole experience, and engage with everybody on the ride, particularly those working in the cafes that serve us.
This unit wholeheartedly approves and supports, not to mention partakes of, this attitude.  :thumbsup:

Quote
it is a good discipline to avoid typical male banter, which is at best infantile, and at worst offensive to women.
TBH I think some "typical male banter" is offensive even to some of those banting; but they do it anyway because expectations, peer pressure, ostracism, etc. All bad reasons but with the capacity to be persuasive.  >:(
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 21 May, 2021, 03:02:31 pm
I think (from a personal perspective at least) it's been a useful thread.

Great!

Whether the Audax board is the best place for it now I'm not so sure, it certainly has the feel of a POBI topic, but relocation may change the tone of discussion for the worse I fear.

That's made me think of all the "BuT CyCLiNG iSN't PolITiCaL" comments Cycling UK got when they posted messages last year in support of Black Lives Matter and Pride Month. A move to POBI could make some circuits melt!

I'd prefer it if this thread stayed in an open board. Maybe if we think of it as resource for event organisers and a conduct guide for those who attend events?


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Lightning Phil on 21 May, 2021, 04:43:12 pm
There’s some very useful insights shared by the women on this thread.

Thanks for listening  :thumbsup:


Is there more I could do?

Here are a few things I've either found useful for me or things others have found useful...


Upthread we mentioned calling out bad behaviour when you see it. This really is key. Also hard. I guess bystander training is the way into getting tips for that. I think someone linked to a resource earlier. Maybe some people can nudge workplaces to provide some - we're pushing for that at the University I'm at. Bonus: works for sexism, racism, homophobia...!

Learning how to spot what things need calling out (kind of a pre-requisite for the above).
  • Diversify your social media feeds - listen to what people who are different to you are saying.
  • I found the Seeing White (https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/) podcast really educational for starting to see how systems of whiteness work. They did a series on Men (https://www.sceneonradio.org/men/), too. American-centric, but same principles apply.

Tamika Butler has spoken about the Actor > Ally > Accomplice spectrum. See video here: https://abc7news.com/allyship-ways-to-be-an-ally-how-define/6314460/ There are some nice distinctions here, as well as reassurance that you won't get it right every time.

Consent. This has been mentioned in the thread a few times when people spoke of offering help. It's also been omitted plenty of times when people have spoken of giving help. It might need to be explicit (think advice or repair help), it might only need eye contact and a raised eyebrow (think intervening).
  • I've had a bit of chat with a cycle repair place in the USA who said that rigorously implementing a consent approach (ask before you diagnose, ask before you touch the bike, ask before you give an opinion...) led to immediately better interactions with his customers and that the feedback is the space is getting a reputation for being welcoming.
  • Asking for background information before launching into the advice-giving stage is also a handy way of reducing the risks of mansplaining. "Is your bike set up in that way for a particular reason?" "Would you be interested in a few suggestions for potentially improving x?"
  • This article about unsolicited advice (https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/feature/unsolicited-advice/) was published recently in Canadian Bicycling Magazine. It includes this diagram:

    (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51192262541_1d84f2453d_o.jpg)

    [Before anyone starts, I know that some people have been trained to observe particular flowchart conventions about what sort of shape outline to use for different processes. Just don't. Really; that's not important in this conversation.]

The Women's New Forest Off Road Club have been doing a lot of work recently to try and head off the fears of potential new riders. This post got a lot of love: https://www.instagram.com/p/COH5x0yF8ej/

On flowchart where it gets to “Help them with the mechanical”.

I know they probably ran out of space. But one of my first questions if someone (at side of road) says they are not ok.  Is ask what the problem is and how can I help?

It may just be that their pump isn’t working, they’ve run out of patches, missing tyre levers, spoke gone and don’t have a spoke key etc. So it may just be a case of handing over your working pump and waiting for it back. If that’s the problem.

I try to administer the minimal assistance I can, if requested.  Not overstep the boundaries of the nature of the assistance requested.

I hope this is the right approach and it’s not thought why isn’t the lazy fucker helping any more than that?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 21 May, 2021, 05:00:02 pm
I think that if this thread was locked, it would probably re-surface under another name because it's something that many people have opinions on, or are simply imterested in finding out what others think about the topic.  The topic itself isn't going to disappear anytime soon (or ever) so I think the better approach would be to leave it on and trust in moderators to have private words with people whom they feel have overstepped the mark of reasonable chat.  It seems a real shame that people might leave over a disagreement but I can understand why they might do it.  They could easily feel that an "opponent" in one facet would dismiss them as people (i.e. in every facet), whereas in fact we disagree with each other all the time about some things.  I have several brothers (or several - 1 since Christmas).  We see eye-to-eye about most things because we are all roughly the same height.  But occasionally one of us sits down and we disagree.  But we don't fall out.  The trick is to try to persuade somebody that your view is right (even if it isn't) whilst getting as much cake out of them as possible.  But it's definitely not an admission of guilt to leave a forum.  I think we forget how easy it is to fight when we're not actually in the same room as our opponent - and often we're not really opponents anyway.

Off for a lie-down, now!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 21 May, 2021, 05:30:02 pm

On flowchart where it gets to “Help them with the mechanical”.

I know they probably ran out of space. But one of my first questions if someone (at side of road) says they are not ok.  Is ask what the problem is and how can I help?

It may just be that their pump isn’t working, they’ve run out of patches, missing tyre levers, spoke gone and don’t have a spoke key etc. So it may just be a case of handing over your working pump and waiting for it back. If that’s the problem.

I try to administer the minimal assistance I can, if requested.  Not overstep the boundaries of the nature of the assistance requested.

I hope this is the right approach and it’s not thought why isn’t the lazy fucker helping any more than that?

First off, you are lovely. If I ever get a mechanical, I hope you are the one who stops and asks if I am okay.

This is unlikely, but never mind.

There was a thread on facebook a while back showing a whole bunch of Keanu Reeves photos in which he was very deliberately not touching the women also in the photo with him. Even where the photographer had clearly asked him to put his arm around the woman, he held it away from her rather than touch.

Every single woman in the comments was absolutely over the moon, complimenting him on this consideration.

(Here is a CNN article on this phenomenon: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/12/entertainment/keanu-reeves-women/index.html )

Women will notice and appreciate your appreciation of their autonomy. I don't think any woman would consider you lazy for not getting more involved unless asked, but also it's totally fine to say, "I respect your personal space, but if you want more assistance I am happy to offer it, just let me know what you need." If I had a breakdown and a man stopped and said that to me, I would be telling all my friends about the super nice man who stopped to help me, and who was respectful and considerate. Women appreciate explicit statements and direct communication.

If I stopped for a woman with a mechanical, I would say something like that rather than assuming she wanted me to step in (or not). Once I'd stopped, and if she needed help, I might offer something specific once I knew what the problem was or if it became obvious she was having difficulty. "Are you having trouble with getting that tyre on? I know a technique that might help. I can show you, if you like?" If she said yes, I would take the wheel at arm's length and do my best to help. If she said no, I would let her get on with it.

I am not a man, and I still make sure I respect the personal space of a woman I don't know.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 21 May, 2021, 05:37:29 pm
And also the other way round; if a man has trouble fitting a tyre (or whatever it may be) and it happens to be a woman who can help, that's great too.

Anyways, I think this is quite a useful thread and it's quite useful that it's in the audax board not in POBI. I think it anchors it more into actual life.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 21 May, 2021, 05:41:06 pm
Anyways the second, on audaxes for specific groups of people (in addition to the DIY or perm solution), I do recall that at least one organiser wanted to run events for kids; shorter distances, frequent stops, BP obviously, and ISTR that the kids would ride in one block with parents in a parent block behind them, but I might be misremembering that detail. Seems like another good idea.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: BrianI on 21 May, 2021, 07:05:05 pm
Anyways the second, on audaxes for specific groups of people (in addition to the DIY or perm solution), I do recall that at least one organiser wanted to run events for kids; shorter distances, frequent stops, BP obviously, and ISTR that the kids would ride in one block with parents in a parent block behind them, but I might be misremembering that detail. Seems like another good idea.

I'm sure I saw posts (possibly not on here, but elsewhere on the interwebs) about  introducing 50km Audax Rides for new cyclists who may not be fit enough (or be time pressured to do a full 200km audax), and much grinding of teeth from those who thought doing so is making Audaxes less Audacious  ::-) As long as it gets folk on the saddle, while encouraging them to do Audaxes of longer length in the future, then that is a Good Idea!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 21 May, 2021, 07:11:22 pm
I don't think anyone was really beefing about that, per se, were they, Brian (?)  - just whether such a ride is an "Audax".  I don't think ACP recognise anything less than 200k as an audax, is all.  Then, half of France doesn't recognise a British role in the liberation of France in World War Eleven.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 21 May, 2021, 07:44:36 pm
I have several brothers (or several - 1 since Christmas).  We see eye-to-eye about most things because we are all roughly the same height.  But occasionally one of us sits down and we disagree.  But we don't fall out.  The trick is to try to persuade somebody that your view is right (even if it isn't) whilst getting as much cake out of them as possible.  But it's definitely not an admission of guilt to leave a forum.  I think we forget how easy it is to fight when we're not actually in the same room as our opponent - and often we're not really opponents anyway.
Post of the Thread  ;D

(and my condolences, Peter)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 21 May, 2021, 07:52:14 pm
Thanks, Matt.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Karla on 21 May, 2021, 08:16:41 pm
I think that's it for this thread.  Now we can put it to bed for another ~year until we all have exactly the same argument over again  :thumbsup:

In the meantime, all props to ACP!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Whitedown Man on 21 May, 2021, 08:58:00 pm
Last person who stopped to help me (a middle aged white bloke) with a mechanical was a woman. She not only fixed my mechanical but “gifted” me the bit of kit she fixed it with and said “you never know when you might need one again”. Never saw her before or since but by god she was awesome. Not 100% relevant to the main thrust of this thread, I know, but hopefully worth sharing. Not all heroes wear capes - nor are they all white knights.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 21 May, 2021, 08:58:25 pm
  • This article about unsolicited advice (https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/feature/unsolicited-advice/) was published recently in Canadian Bicycling Magazine. It includes this diagram:

    (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51192262541_1d84f2453d_o.jpg)
This is great. And I think a lot of it applies more broadly than just cycling - especially so in internet forums. It's actually quite common in yacf.

I have to be careful not to fall into the trap myself at times - the other day, for example, ravenbait posted in the food thread about her katsu curry being too sweet and even though I was mindful of the fact that she wasn't asking for advice, I couldn't resist asking - and ravenbait, I hope you took it as me being interested rather than as me trying to tell you how to cook.

And I know this doesn't just apply to men offering women advice, but... well, I guess there's a reason why "mansplaining" has become a thing and "womansplaining" hasn't.

It's also broader than just unsolicited advice, it's how you respond generally to what other people are saying. This bit from Shirly Valentine has always stuck with me:

Quote
I mean, most fellas ya know, they've got no idea how to talk to a woman, no. They think they have to take over the conversation. I mean with most fellas if you say something like, like my favourite season's autumn, they go oh oh my favourite season's spring and then you've got 10 minutes of them talkin about why they like spring and you weren't talkin about spring, you were talkin about autumn. So what do you do. You talk about what they want to talk about, or you don't talk at all, or you wind up talking to yourself.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: frankly frankie on 21 May, 2021, 11:31:17 pm
Quote
I mean, most fellas ya know, they've got no idea how to talk to a woman, no. They think they have to take over the conversation. I mean with most fellas if you say something like, like my favourite season's autumn, they go oh oh my favourite season's spring and then you've got 10 minutes of them talkin about why they like spring and you weren't talkin about spring, you were talkin about autumn. So what do you do. You talk about what they want to talk about, or you don't talk at all, or you wind up talking to yourself.

Ironic.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 22 May, 2021, 01:10:21 am
In mitigation I have to admit to a tendency to talk about what I want to talk about.       And so does the woman I live with.....
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 22 May, 2021, 09:27:27 am
I have read through the thread and I have nothing new to add except

nah, sorry, don't need to bother from my perspective, sorry to drag it off line. Just fell into the trap as I often do of thinking I could get somewhere or get something across .... if QG replies and I feel the need to come back on it I'll do it via PM, was actually in two minds whether to anyway.

yeah, about that. Don't. It's fucking creepy. Don't PM. Either reply in the thread, or keep your thoughts to yourself.

^This! I have been on the receiving end of this behaviour here and it was indeed fucking creepy.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 22 May, 2021, 09:40:28 am
That view surprised me a little but is understandable once it was pointed out to me.

I almost never use PMs, other than when sorting details while buying/selling on this forum but I have usually seen PMs as like a breakout room in a conference. Continuing a discussion on a specific point without derailing the group/ major dialogue. Obviously that is not how many folk see PMs.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 22 May, 2021, 10:04:19 am
Quote
I mean, most fellas ya know, they've got no idea how to talk to a woman, no. They think they have to take over the conversation. I mean with most fellas if you say something like, like my favourite season's autumn, they go oh oh my favourite season's spring and then you've got 10 minutes of them talkin about why they like spring and you weren't talkin about spring, you were talkin about autumn. So what do you do. You talk about what they want to talk about, or you don't talk at all, or you wind up talking to yourself.

Ironic.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20131112-do-women-talk-more-than-men

(TL;DR: No. No, they don't.)

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 22 May, 2021, 10:09:08 am
There are different flavours of PM. Most of my experiences of them here are as LittleWheelsandBig describes, but then there's also the special treats you can look forward to as a women on the internet.

It's kind of like the difference between encountering a friend in town and then inviting them back for a cuppa and a chat (feels odd remembering those times), and someone haranguing you on the street, following you to your home, jamming a foot in the door so you can't close it and yelling at you demanding you go over what's already been said out on the street, probably expecting you to explain or justify minutiae and, well, you've seen the tone of some of the public posts, it doesn't tend to improve when there's no external scrutiny.

Modified to add:
Chaps, if you're now fretting about whether PM-ing a woman is 'allowed' and you have a non-trolling or non-creepy reason for taking things to PM, just adapt that flowchart that's been posted upthread. Maybe try an initial "Hi Nikki, I saw your post on x and was wondering if you'd be up for talking about xy in more detail?" and respect whatever response comes back. If a response doesn't come back either you've crossed a line, I'm doing something else or I'm on holiday.


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 22 May, 2021, 10:27:47 am
I have to be careful not to fall into the trap myself at times - the other day, for example, ravenbait posted in the food thread about her katsu curry being too sweet and even though I was mindful of the fact that she wasn't asking for advice, I couldn't resist asking - and ravenbait, I hope you took it as me being interested rather than as me trying to tell you how to cook.

I did, especially as I said in that post that I didn't know if I had cooked it incorrectly or just didn't like that style of food. You asked for the recipe rather than immediately suggesting that it was my fault for not doing it properly, then shared a different recipe. I appreciated it, thank you. (If you'd asked if, e.g., I was sure I'd sweated down the onions enough, that would be different!)

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 22 May, 2021, 01:12:55 pm
Oh yes, I should add, 99% of my PM's have been just fine.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 22 May, 2021, 01:41:31 pm
Well that was a hell of a thread to find when it got to page 7...

I stand by everything the women here have been saying. I couldn't say it better myself. Thank you, to all of you for that emotional energy.

While my experience of sexism is not identical to all other women's, I think almost all women experience sexism or modify our lives somehow because of sexism (or get told we SHOULD modify our lives more cos sexism)...

My experiences of sexism are very moderated by disablism and indeed the perhaps-blessing of not hearing a fair percentage of it (I have been advised of how much I'm missing). While still recalling several scary incidents that have all blurred into a jumble. 

Le sigh at #NotAllMen-ning... And the dodgy PMing...

Thank to everyone who expressed a willingness to listen and learn, read the excellent resources posted within (I'm going to go in and gakk them all into one place they're so good) and are trying to understand. All of us have the need to do that - especially on areas we're not privileged in or knowledgeable about... I found Jools Walker's book really interesting from a woman's perspective and learned a lot about some of the racialised dimensions of rarely seeing faces that look anything like your own - whether in cycling or elsewhere.

I hope this thread is not locked or deleted for the reasons so well articulated by Nikki and others. While painful for some (for which I don't think we women should apologise), I think it's been and will continue to be a mostly valuable discussion.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 22 May, 2021, 01:55:26 pm
Excellent post.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 22 May, 2021, 05:32:42 pm
read the excellent resources posted within (I'm going to go in and gakk them all into one place they're so good)

Hi barakta, how do you get on with audio and video stuff?

I've just gone back and watched the recording of Carolyn Axtell (founder of JoyRiders) talking with Aneela McKenna (GoWhere Scotland, MTB Coach/Leader, Diversity & Inclusion Manager for the Scottish Parliament), and Jenni Gwiadowski (London Bike Kitchen & Wheelsuckers Podcast).
Trailblazers and Bikebuilders: An Evening with Carolyn Axtell & Guests (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2ogCj_Pbg&list=PLNNuafKv9Erojxg6eASxx3RLVkRIq3wmZ&index=2) (youtube/zoom)
It's got more of an intersectional WOC perspective that you might value if you liked Back in the Frame.

For next level equity thinking (gender beyond the binary, land stewardship, power of naming things, racism & grief, colonialism etc), I've found the Within & Without Podcast thought provoking. The audio might not be very accessible to you though (even I found the backing music quite loud sometimes), but I think it's stuff you'd find good for your resource list. https://radicaladventureriders.com/podcast

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Andy W on 22 May, 2021, 05:57:17 pm
Mansplaining. A new word, to me at least. Carries so much weight. I'm a middle aged man, married with 3 daughters all well accomplished. Even though they're  my nearest and dearest I avoid mansplaining or to use an archaic term, patronising. Specifically cycling, they all fi x punctures easily and carry out bike maintenance. They're every bit as capable as our 3 sons and my wife and I didn't  and don't bat an eyelid . I'm all for women only audax if it makes some women feel more comfortable.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 22 May, 2021, 10:00:06 pm
read the excellent resources posted within (I'm going to go in and gakk them all into one place they're so good)

Hi barakta, how do you get on with audio and video stuff?
<snip>

Video with reasonable captions I have some capacity for, I tend to chunk it into 15-20 min blocks and take lots of breaks. I've just finished watching the Joyriders link above (in chunks)  which was great and have tabbed off a bunch of stuff about Aneela and Carolyn and Jenni + their projects to read slowly over the next few days. Thanks so much for that link, it is absolutely ideal following on from Jools's book (which is dirt cheap in Kindle format which is how I got mine as I still can't read print books properly even after £900 worth of newspex, so couldn't read Kim's copy -- I'm e-material for reading mostly now).

Audio without transcript is basically not accessible unless it's very short as my brain fails to remember anything or overheats from the effort. But I like that it is out there cos there is SO much in text already that podcasts reach people who perhaps don't read or benefit from the format.


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 22 May, 2021, 10:16:22 pm

Today I did a rather tough metric century. It was utterly brutal.

at the 98km mark I went under a bridge, and on my left there was a group of young men, they had a moped, and a few Dutch bikes.

On instinct, or is it habit. I changed down a gear. If they gave me any hassle I wanted to be in a position to at least try to sprint away. At least as much as my dead legs would allow me.

I'm guessing this is something all the women here will recognise.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 22 May, 2021, 11:34:51 pm
Yeah, the weighing up of situations, groups of men, because the potential consequences of not being prepared...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 23 May, 2021, 12:37:15 pm
These last couple of posts have reminded me of a homeward city centre commute a few years ago: about 5:30, but in January so already dark.

I'd tend to use the canal towpaths to get a few extra miles in without the hassle of Birmingham's aggressive driving. On the canals my risk radar would get triggered every so often, but I didn't generally have any issues. This one time though there was a woman walking along the towpath and she was in an absolute state: distressed, shaking, crying... She was trying to meet up with a canal boat that was trying to relocate the other side of a closure, but she'd had some sort of encounter with some youths, turned back and was too scared to go the way she needed to go.

I stayed with her until she calmed down a bit and was able to describe where it was she was supposed to be meeting the boat. I offered to walk with her, she accepted, and I used all my small talk skillz to try and stop her panicking again. At one point we had to walk past the people who had put her in that state: IIRC 4 or 5 men in their 20s, now jeering at us, asking if we were scared of them.

It's tempting to say we managed to get past and find her crew without further incident, but of course this all has lasting consequences and I'm sure she would have carried that experience with her for a long time. She worked on the canal, maybe even lived there too, so it's not like she could have avoided the reminders. It stuck with me too. Do we think the men gave it a second thought?


So there's something there about how comments, or 'having a laff with the lads' aren't as inconsequential as some people might think them to be. I'm super curious to find out more about what's behind the casual bullying/harassment/intimidation of strangers though, and maybe some of the men here can shed some light on this for me.

It's not uncommon for me to pass a group of men and to get comments about my body, or my hair, or perceived sexual orientation, or my lack of smile, or... It seems that mostly this is a point-scoring exercise amongst the group: I'll typically perceive it as coming from a place of insecurity and weakness rather than as one of strength or power*. If I was with other female friends I'd almost certainly be able to exchange a glance with my companions that would unpack as meaning something like "woah! Trying to compensate for some sort of inadequacy there, we're all immediately assuming small penis aren't we?" In practice of course, this never happens, because the harassers go for the easy target of the lone woman...

So what I'm perpetually baffled by is: if, say, half the population's immediate reaction to provocations like these are "oh, you must have a small penis"
* are the men aware of this?
* if not, how do they think they're being perceived by the women involved?
* how does the point-scoring within the group work? Do they get kudos for random acts of intimidation? What's being demonstrated or proven here, and do they really think that this is equivalent to being 'strong' or 'manly' or 'someone to respect'?
* and does this outweigh the automatic assumption of inadequacy from those outside the group?


I just don't get it.


* I will also be processing it as having the potential to escalate into a more physically dangerous situation
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 23 May, 2021, 12:41:47 pm
Oh, and 'bikesplaining' is a term in use now, for the particular subset of mansplaining that occurs around cycling...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 23 May, 2021, 12:57:08 pm
I think that sort of harassment is part a whole class of behaviours among groups of (almost exclusively) young (almost exclusively) men that's entirely done for social status within the group.  If it's not sexually harassing women, it might be faux-laughing or making 'witty' comments at people on unusual bikes, taking photographs of people with visible disabilities, intimidating the elderly, shouting racist abuse or harassing queer-coded people.  And of course that young-man staple of abusing out-group young men.

None of it is for the 'benefit' of the victim (indeed, the victim's feelings might as well not exist, except where the intention is to provoke a reaction), and given that it rarely happens when they're on their own[1][2], it seems to be performative for their peers.  It happens less when they're in mixed-gender groups, presumably because they have other performative behaviour priorities.

I know I've posted it before, but this is an accurate reflection of the sort of interactions I get with random strangers while cycling:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151169/

In general I find this sort of thing greatly preferable to the flavour of harassment I get when not cycling, though these days it's much reduced as I have the invisibility of middle age and an unremarkable body shape on my side.  You can always get off the bike.



[1] With smartphones, 'on their own' has a flexible definition, of course.
[2] Sexually creepy/intimidating behaviours by solo men presumably have entirely different motivations.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 23 May, 2021, 01:29:55 pm
IIRC 4 or 5 men in their 20s, now jeering at us, asking if we were scared of them.

That sounds terrifying. Even if you rationalise it by thinking they're unlikely to go further than just jeering, you have no way of knowing exactly how far they are willing to go.

Quote
So what I'm perpetually baffled by is: if, say, half the population's immediate reaction to provocations like these are "oh, you must have a small penis"
* are the men aware of this?
* if not, how do they think they're being perceived by the women involved?
* how does the point-scoring within the group work? Do they get kudos for random acts of intimidation? What's being demonstrated or proven here, and do they really think that this is equivalent to being 'strong' or 'manly' or 'someone to respect'?
* and does this outweigh the automatic assumption of inadequacy from those outside the group?

I just don't get it.

Well, I wish I could shed some light on it for you, but I've never thought it was OK to behave that way - and thankfully I've never hung around in groups who thought it was OK either. But I'm quite reticent about public interactions with strangers anyway though. My limit tends to be saying hello or waving at other cyclists when I'm on the bike, or saying hello to other dog walkers when I'm out with the dog.

I will admit to occasionally 'checking out' a woman I see in the street, and I am aware even that can feel threatening too (especially since I'm probably not being as subtle about it as I think I am), so I have to remind myself not to do it (I'm reasonably well trained in this respect, honest). But vocalising it? Making comments about a complete stranger's appearance - even if they're superficially complimentary - is way beyond the pale.

No, I don't get it either.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Jurek on 23 May, 2021, 04:31:57 pm
I get on with the women at work.
All of them.
Without exception.

I think that a significant part of the reason for this is that I don't harass.
Ever.
I can't say that is the same for the vast majority of the men I work with.
They mostly do harass.
The worst offender is one of the security guards on the gate.
If you are a woman you won't get to go past his threshold without unsolicited comment being made.
Without fail.
Every. Single. Time.
And he's supposed to make one feel secure? safe?  :facepalm:

I don't really get it either.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: De Sisti on 23 May, 2021, 04:50:09 pm
The worst offender is one of the security guards on the gate.
If you are a woman you won't get to go past his threshold without unsolicited comment being made.
Without fail.
Every. Single. Time.
Make it your duty to report him to those in his line-management chain.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Philip Whiteman on 23 May, 2021, 04:54:10 pm
It needs somebody to organise a women only audax, otherwise it will never happen.  If one is arranged within reasonable travelling distance of the Midlands, I will willingly pop along and provide support on the day.   I had mooted organising one but currently do not have the capacity and to be honest, a man leading the organisation of a women only audax comes across as a bit odd.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Jurek on 23 May, 2021, 05:05:29 pm
The worst offender is one of the security guards on the gate.
If you are a woman you won't get to go past his threshold without unsolicited comment being made.
Without fail.
Every. Single. Time.
Make it your duty to report him to those in his line-management chain.
I've drawn his behaviour to the attention of his line manager a number of times.
I suspect that this is why he doesn't speak to me.
As a result of which he gets a very enthusiastic and animated 'Hello!' from me, every day.
Let him squirm.
And hate me.
I'm impervious to it.
I guess that's to do with my privilege.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 23 May, 2021, 05:22:23 pm
That post about the canal from Nikki is awful.  I can't answer any of the questions about why people do it, because I've never been in their shoes, or more usually, trainers.  However, it is not solely directed at females (+).  I'm pretty sure it happens to many who are on their own, or in a distinct minority.  I've certainly had attempted intimidation, which I always try to avoid, not just because I'm a coward (I'm not a bruiser, but I prefer to call myself "cautious" - it's a self-esteem thing!)  The trouble with tow-paths is that there is no way to avoid the confrontation, except by turning back and then not only have the oiks  "won", but you don't get where you need to be and will harbour the thought that that could easily be the case again.  It's cowardly behaviour and absolutely despicable.  I'm very sorry for your acquaintance, Nikki and well done for helping her.

Peter 

PS  Just re-read that , Nikki - obviously I'm not sorry for your personal acquaintance because we've never met!  Rather I mean the woman you helped.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: De Sisti on 23 May, 2021, 05:48:20 pm
The worst offender is one of the security guards on the gate.
If you are a woman you won't get to go past his threshold without unsolicited comment being made.
Without fail.
Every. Single. Time.
Make it your duty to report him to those in his line-management chain.
I've drawn his behaviour to the attention of his line manager a number of times.
I suspect that this is why he doesn't speak to me.
As a result of which he gets a very enthusiastic and animated 'Hello!' from me, every day.
Let him squirm.
And hate me.
I'm impervious to it.
I guess that's to do with my privilege.
(https://www.pinclipart.com/picdir/middle/538-5382600_clapping-hands-png-black-hands-clapping-gif-clipart.png)
Well done
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 23 May, 2021, 06:25:46 pm
It needs somebody to organise a women only audax, otherwise it will never happen.  If one is arranged within reasonable travelling distance of the Midlands, I will willingly pop along and provide support on the day.   I had mooted organising one but currently do not have the capacity and to be honest, a man leading the organisation of a women only audax comes across as a bit odd.

fboab has got it in hand: https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119266.msg2625232#msg2625232
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Jurek on 23 May, 2021, 06:48:16 pm
The worst offender is one of the security guards on the gate.
If you are a woman you won't get to go past his threshold without unsolicited comment being made.
Without fail.
Every. Single. Time.
Make it your duty to report him to those in his line-management chain.
I've drawn his behaviour to the attention of his line manager a number of times.
I suspect that this is why he doesn't speak to me.
As a result of which he gets a very enthusiastic and animated 'Hello!' from me, every day.
Let him squirm.
And hate me.
I'm impervious to it.
I guess that's to do with my privilege.
(https://www.pinclipart.com/picdir/middle/538-5382600_clapping-hands-png-black-hands-clapping-gif-clipart.png)
Well done
Your sarcasm, as that is how I take it, is lost on me.
Do you think you could be a bit more constructive?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: De Sisti on 23 May, 2021, 07:33:23 pm
That is not sarcasm. It is applauding you for having the courage to report the security guard.
Apology will be accepted when it's offered.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Jurek on 23 May, 2021, 07:50:42 pm
That is not sarcasm. It is applauding you for having the courage to report the security guard.
Apology will be accepted when it's offered.
Apology offered.  :)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: sojournermike on 23 May, 2021, 08:51:32 pm
These last couple of posts have reminded me of a homeward city centre commute a few years ago: about 5:30, but in January so already dark.

I'd tend to use the canal towpaths to get a few extra miles in without the hassle of Birmingham's aggressive driving. On the canals my risk radar would get triggered every so often, but I didn't generally have any issues. This one time though there was a woman walking along the towpath and she was in an absolute state: distressed, shaking, crying... She was trying to meet up with a canal boat that was trying to relocate the other side of a closure, but she'd had some sort of encounter with some youths, turned back and was too scared to go the way she needed to go.

I stayed with her until she calmed down a bit and was able to describe where it was she was supposed to be meeting the boat. I offered to walk with her, she accepted, and I used all my small talk skillz to try and stop her panicking again. At one point we had to walk past the people who had put her in that state: IIRC 4 or 5 men in their 20s, now jeering at us, asking if we were scared of them.

It's tempting to say we managed to get past and find her crew without further incident, but of course this all has lasting consequences and I'm sure she would have carried that experience with her for a long time. She worked on the canal, maybe even lived there too, so it's not like she could have avoided the reminders. It stuck with me too. Do we think the men gave it a second thought?


So there's something there about how comments, or 'having a laff with the lads' aren't as inconsequential as some people might think them to be. I'm super curious to find out more about what's behind the casual bullying/harassment/intimidation of strangers though, and maybe some of the men here can shed some light on this for me.

It's not uncommon for me to pass a group of men and to get comments about my body, or my hair, or perceived sexual orientation, or my lack of smile, or... It seems that mostly this is a point-scoring exercise amongst the group: I'll typically perceive it as coming from a place of insecurity and weakness rather than as one of strength or power*. If I was with other female friends I'd almost certainly be able to exchange a glance with my companions that would unpack as meaning something like "woah! Trying to compensate for some sort of inadequacy there, we're all immediately assuming small penis aren't we?" In practice of course, this never happens, because the harassers go for the easy target of the lone woman...

So what I'm perpetually baffled by is: if, say, half the population's immediate reaction to provocations like these are "oh, you must have a small penis"
* are the men aware of this?
* if not, how do they think they're being perceived by the women involved?
* how does the point-scoring within the group work? Do they get kudos for random acts of intimidation? What's being demonstrated or proven here, and do they really think that this is equivalent to being 'strong' or 'manly' or 'someone to respect'?
* and does this outweigh the automatic assumption of inadequacy from those outside the group?


I just don't get it.


* I will also be processing it as having the potential to escalate into a more physically dangerous situation


Nikki, I can’t shed any light on this at all I’m afraid - well actually pleased in a way. I saw a CCTV video from Ireland the other day of a group of youths going beyond intimidation and lashing out at young girls trying to board a train. Personally, I’d like to impose some very severe sentences. I think Kim(?) summed up the notion of some perverted group dynamic - but in my male groups hierarchy has never been settled by whose the biggest or loudest mouthed bully at women, or even amongst the group tbh.

I am delighted at your response about their compensation. Well deserved I reckon.

I will repeat what I said earlier though and just note that talking with my female colleagues has been quite shocking - the normality and frequency of bad behaviour in particular.

If anyone wishes to organise a ladies only Audax, or even a non-compliant ride, if it’s accessible from North Yorkshire I’m more than happy to help out and serve up tea and cakes along the route or some such - as people have done for me when I’m riding of course. Obviously understand if you wanted to keep it all female volunteers and all.

Mike
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 23 May, 2021, 08:55:37 pm
In terms of "why do (groups of young) men do this" I can't say I understand it from the inside, but I think that it's as Kim says; it's performative. It is literally "not about you", it's only about the other members of the group. I don't think it's to do with hierarchy or status within the group so much as marking yourself as being in-group by visibly harassing out-groups. It's a bit like three football fans who might get along fine until they discover two are Arsenal and one is Spurs, only in this case the out-group markers are visible and obvious immediately. Or "postcode gang wars". The feelings of the victim don't, I think, exist in the aggressors' minds, only their reactions. It's a quite successful piece of de-personising.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Lightning Phil on 23 May, 2021, 09:28:17 pm
I would say you’d have to look at a combination of gang dynamics whether that is young men from deprived backgrounds, to groups of public schoolboys braying, to football gangs. 

They act as a group, with the rules defined by their peers and leaders of those groups.  One thing they probably feel as a group is that they are untouchable.  The only thing that matters is that they fit and belong within their group / gang.

As to their moral compass, it probably didn’t get challenged early enough and often enough, that’s it’s gone way beyond what we’d consider acceptable behaviour and views.

I suspect they may have grown up in male dominated environments, with little normal interaction with girls and women.  Plus no or little parental or peer interventions to correct their behaviour.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 23 May, 2021, 09:36:08 pm
Sadly we know that harsh legal sanction don't solve aggressive behaviour towards women, minorities or 'outgroups'. In fact getting into the criminal justice system may make things worse.

What does help we think is socially making the behaviour unacceptable. So not rewarding it in any contexts e.g. work, home, school. Offer perps the chance to be educated, but also don't let them continue unabated once they've had fair warning. Make it clear from the top - people in power - that it is never OK. this comes in various forms, everything from schools telling young women their clothes are too skimpy and will 'affect men' which needs calling as the bullshit it is, to young black kids getting racist bullshittery about their hair in education (also needs calling out by white people as racist shit). We need to start seeing where the discrimination manifests and nobbling it.

I think men modelling good behaviour all the time to their families helps. Explicitly bringing up young men especially to understand sexism and behave both respectfully and supportively towards women helps. It's not enough to be not-sexist not-racist not-homophobic etc etc -- we need to all be proactively anti-discriminatory. We need to talk to young people about this stuff and show then how to handle it when they see it, what can they do, what can we do?

Do like Jurek has done, speak to management about dodgy security guard. Reach out to those harmed and offer support, offer to support people like Nikki did. Also be aware when people can't trust you because you look similar to other perps and don't take it personally but prove by your understanding and behaviour that you are one of the better ones.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 24 May, 2021, 06:44:08 am
Oh, and 'bikesplaining' is a term in use now, for the particular subset of mansplaining that occurs around cycling...
Ah, yet more generalisation and labelling promoting division. That will help!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 24 May, 2021, 08:11:52 am
Generalisation?  I'd say it's pretty specific
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 11:13:41 am
That post about the canal from Nikki is awful.  I can't answer any of the questions about why people do it, because I've never been in their shoes, or more usually, trainers.  However, it is not solely directed at females (+).  I'm pretty sure it happens to many who are on their own, or in a distinct minority.  I've certainly had attempted intimidation, which I always try to avoid, not just because I'm a coward (I'm not a bruiser, but I prefer to call myself "cautious" - it's a self-esteem thing!)  The trouble with tow-paths is that there is no way to avoid the confrontation, except by turning back and then not only have the oiks  "won", but you don't get where you need to be and will harbour the thought that that could easily be the case again.  It's cowardly behaviour and absolutely despicable.  I'm very sorry for your acquaintance, Nikki and well done for helping her.

Can I draw everyone's attention to something here. Female is an adjective. It is used to proceed something else. Female cat, female badger, female human. In and of itself it doesn't really mean much. It's a bit like saying "cheerfuls". It's rare that people say "Males". You will often hear people say "men's race" and "females race". Every time I hear someone say females. I can't help but think of the ferengi from star trek.

The word most people want, is woman. It's not the fastest female. Or the first female. It's the fastest woman, or the first woman. As I have screamed onto twitter and at the tele many a time. "WOMAN! the word you're looking for is WOMAN!". During the 2019 TCR when Fiona was willing it was an absolutely shitfest of people failing to use the word woman. I pointed this out, then got told the person I had picked on wasn't a native English speaker. So I explained it to them in both German and Dutch (there is a similar difference in the way the languages differentiate).

It's a small thing. But saying a women only audax is a lot more welcoming than a females only audax. Even if the intent is the same. Not to mention that when people say "females" or "female" without following up with something like rider, or human, It puts me on alert that maybe, this person is not an ally. I'm sure you're a lovely person, and it's an innocent mistake, and I hope everyone will learn from this.

Regarding Nikki's story on the tow path, This video did the rounds on twitter. Of boys being boys towards women. On a train platform. Watch to the end.

https://twitter.com/Atlantide4world/status/1391511852341997575



Nikki, I can’t shed any light on this at all I’m afraid - well actually pleased in a way. I saw a CCTV video from Ireland the other day of a group of youths going beyond intimidation and lashing out at young girls trying to board a train. Personally, I’d like to impose some very severe sentences. I think Kim(?) summed up the notion of some perverted group dynamic - but in my male groups hierarchy has never been settled by whose the biggest or loudest mouthed bully at women, or even amongst the group tbh.

See the twitter link above.

Quote
I will repeat what I said earlier though and just note that talking with my female colleagues has been quite shocking - the normality and frequency of bad behaviour in particular.

Correct usage of female, as an adjective along side colleague. To go with the start of this post.


Sadly we know that harsh legal sanction don't solve aggressive behaviour towards women, minorities or 'outgroups'. In fact getting into the criminal justice system may make things worse.

What does help we think is socially making the behaviour unacceptable. So not rewarding it in any contexts e.g. work, home, school. Offer perps the chance to be educated, but also don't let them continue unabated once they've had fair warning. Make it clear from the top - people in power - that it is never OK. this comes in various forms, everything from schools telling young women their clothes are too skimpy and will 'affect men' which needs calling as the bullshit it is, to young black kids getting racist bullshittery about their hair in education (also needs calling out by white people as racist shit). We need to start seeing where the discrimination manifests and nobbling it.

I think men modelling good behaviour all the time to their families helps. Explicitly bringing up young men especially to understand sexism and behave both respectfully and supportively towards women helps. It's not enough to be not-sexist not-racist not-homophobic etc etc -- we need to all be proactively anti-discriminatory. We need to talk to young people about this stuff and show then how to handle it when they see it, what can they do, what can we do?

Do like Jurek has done, speak to management about dodgy security guard. Reach out to those harmed and offer support, offer to support people like Nikki did. Also be aware when people can't trust you because you look similar to other perps and don't take it personally but prove by your understanding and behaviour that you are one of the better ones.

Barakta continuing to have 100% accuracy in hitting the nail on the head.

Oh, and 'bikesplaining' is a term in use now, for the particular subset of mansplaining that occurs around cycling...
Ah, yet more generalisation and labelling promoting division. That will help!

Would you prefer correctile dysfunction as a term?

Continuing down the slight tangent of linguistics here.

Guys is not a gender neutral term. So at the start of an event, when someone says, "Ok guys, gather round", or similar. It is exclusionary to women. Now at this point someone will argue with me. "No, guys is gender neutral!". Well It's not. I can answer that simply by asking a question. "How many guys have you dated?". With the follow up question, and how many of those guys were women?

In the before times when we could travel, I was touring European Tech conferences giving lectures on how to improve diversity in IT. This is something I bring up a lot. (That and tell a group of 100 men to be better fathers...). When I did this talk in Copenhagen, (the day before the plague hit and the world ended), I asked the question, and the whole back row of the audience pissed themselves laughing. After the talk, someone from the back row came to apologise. Turns out they were from a gay hacker space, all 8 of them...

The follow up question I get is "Then what should I use instead?"

"Gather round people!"
"Ok folks, can you all hear me?"
"Riders!"
"Minions!"
"Ladies, Gentlemen, and everyone in between."

Being inclusive includes being inclusive in the way we speak. Guys is not gender neutral. Female is an adjective.

This whole post is not aimed at singling out any one person, it's with a hope of educating everyone. Including some of the women, as even women use guys. And, having listened to a couple of triathlon podcasts recently (lake tahoe anyone?), they also use the females thing, and it really jars.

Thanks

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 24 May, 2021, 11:21:44 am
correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

Quote
Guys is not a gender neutral term. So at the start of an event, when someone says, "Ok guys, gather round", or similar. It is exclusionary to women. Now at this point someone will argue with me. "No, guys is gender neutral!". Well It's not. I can answer that simply by asking a question. "How many guys have you dated?". With the follow up question, and how many of those guys were women?

Going off on a slight tangent, I was struck yesterday by the notice in Tesco by the self-scan checkouts telling customers who wanted to pay cash to go to the manned tills. *cringe*

Letter to store manager is on the to-do list.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 24 May, 2021, 11:30:52 am
I'm ignoring all the linguistic tangents (apart from correctile dysfunction, which is indeed brilliant) for the good of the thread.

That Irish train station video is shocking. Not only what happens at the end but the way it developed, including the (as far as I could tell, though he might have been saying something) lack of reaction from the security(? in yellow). Never seen anything quite like it.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 24 May, 2021, 11:53:16 am
Going off on a slight tangent, I was struck yesterday by the notice in Tesco by the self-scan checkouts telling customers who wanted to pay cash to go to the manned tills. *cringe*

Every space nerd knows the correct term is 'crewed'.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 12:19:31 pm
Every space nerd knows the correct term is 'crewed'.

Exactly!

The number of times I've screamed that at NASA and space X streams...

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: arabella on 24 May, 2021, 12:40:12 pm
Continuing down the slight tangent of linguistics here.

Guys is not a gender neutral term. So at the start of an event, when someone says, "Ok guys, gather round", or similar. It is exclusionary to women. Now at this point someone will argue with me. "No, guys is gender neutral!". Well It's not. I can answer that simply by asking a question. "How many guys have you dated?". With the follow up question, and how many of those guys were women?

In the before times when we could travel, I was touring European Tech conferences giving lectures on how to improve diversity in IT. This is something I bring up a lot. (That and tell a group of 100 men to be better fathers...). When I did this talk in Copenhagen, (the day before the plague hit and the world ended), I asked the question, and the whole back row of the audience pissed themselves laughing. After the talk, someone from the back row came to apologise. Turns out they were from a gay hacker space, all 8 of them...

The follow up question I get is "Then what should I use instead?"

"Gather round people!"
"Ok folks, can you all hear me?"
"Riders!"
"Minions!"
"Ladies, Gentlemen, and everyone in between."

Being inclusive includes being inclusive in the way we speak. Guys is not gender neutral. Female is an adjective.

This whole post is not aimed at singling out any one person, it's with a hope of educating everyone. Including some of the women, as even women use guys. And, having listened to a couple of triathlon podcasts recently (lake tahoe anyone?), they also use the females thing, and it really jars.

Thanks

J
In spades.
And please do not think "guys and girls" is acceptable either. I'm a grownup, my children are grownups; I was last a 'girl' in the mid 1980s.  The only possible exception is "boys and girls".

Please don't tell me guys in the dictionary either.  It didn't use to be.  It got there because (you and) mumble people couldn't be bothered to use an inclusive term.  If I called you all "ladies" for the next 20 years - would any bloke agree they were a lady?

If you want to be Chaucerian there is also "gentles"
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Philip Whiteman on 24 May, 2021, 12:48:35 pm
I absolutely cringe at "guys".  When it comes to my salutations to participants on my audax events, I limit expressions to pronouns such as 'audaxer', 'everyone', etc.   This is not necessarily a means of avoiding binary expression, but is instead an attempt to avoid words that feel rather old fashioned.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 12:50:38 pm
I absolutely cringe at "guys".  When it comes to my salutations to participants on my audax events, I limit expressions to 'audaxer', 'everyone', etc.   This is not a deliberate attempt to avoid binary nouns, rather an attempt to address fellow cyclists.

I am the only woman in the company I work for.

When ever anyone says guys, I just assume they don't include me. "Guys, your desks are a mess, can you tidy up?"

*me does not move*

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: woollypigs on 24 May, 2021, 12:57:04 pm
Thanks for this thread. Here's hoping that I will not be a dick.

I try my best to be better like with regards to the linguistics, for me it is just darn hard to change after 50 odd years of using certain terms for certain things. So I do know I sometimes slip up and I'm every so sorry for doing so, but I'm trying to learn. And that why this thread is brilliant.

I have for a long time wanted to help out on X group rides* because I think it is a wonderful idea as it will help to get more people into something I really enjoy - that being going on a world tour, fun, commuting, racing or just because. But being a white male this often is the reason for the X only, and therefore I haven't asked if I could help when it comes to hiking, cycling etc.

* some I'm very jealous about cause what I have read about these group ride/hikes/camping trips is just what I want to do. The write up sound just like great fun were had. Many times without that "I'm better/faster/stronger/have better gear than you", that you often get on male dominated rides. Which have stopped me a few times joining a club or group trip/hike/etc.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 24 May, 2021, 01:19:04 pm
@ quixoticgeek

I accept that you obviously don't like female used as a noun and i usually avoid it myself but am frequently writing on here when I am technically asleep!  However, the use of the word "male" instead of man is also rife, if nowhere near as common as the use of "female" for women.  And it is definitely the case that many people use "female" but "man" rather than male.  I can see how that grates.  But Female as a noun goes back to at least the 14th century and is still correct, if clumsy and these days somewhat inelegant.

I can confirm that I am indeed a lovely person - but it was not an "innocent mistake".  It wasn't a mistake at all, just not preferred.

I certainly don't intend to give offence and I try to be open-minded, so if you want to respond, please do!  As Groucho said, "That's my opinion - if you don't like it, I have others."

Peter

PS Definitely agree with all the "guys/chaps" stuff
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 01:24:31 pm
@ quixoticgeek

I accept that you obviously don't like female used as a noun and i usually avoid it myself but am frequently writing on here when I am technically asleep!  However, the use of the word "male" instead of man is also rife, if nowhere near as common as the use of "female" for women.  And it is definitely the case that many people use "female" but "man" rather than male.  I can see how that grates.  But Female as a noun goes back to at least the 14th century and is still correct, if clumsy and these days somewhat inelegant.

Just cos it's correct according to a linguistic history, doesn't mean that it isn't wrong now. I hear this sort of thing all the time from Males. It's either like you say trying to justify using females, or it's the guys thing. The reality is, women do not like being called females. And we ask that males please stop doing so. Whether you feel that the dictionary allows you to do so. The reality is, its just not nice.

When every someone says females, this is what I see:

(https://i.imgur.com/YA7yx.jpg)

J

PS Yes I know I have used males as a noun in this post, it's because I'm trying to make a point. It reads horribly doesn't it? It's much nicer if I word it as "I hear this sort of thing all the time from men." isn't it?


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 24 May, 2021, 01:32:22 pm
J.  That's absolutely, fine, thank you - I am awake now and have made note to try harder!

By the way, on the"....... this is what I see" - I can't see anything in your message at that point, i.e. no link or picture, etc.  Can you re-send, or might it be a problem with my browser?

Peter
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 24 May, 2021, 01:33:15 pm
Thanks for this thread. Here's hoping that I will not be a dick.

I try my best to be better like with regards to the linguistics, for me it is just darn hard to change after 50 odd years of using certain terms for certain things. So I do know I sometimes slip up and I'm every so sorry for doing so, but I'm trying to learn. And that why this thread is brilliant.

I am guilty of occasionally using "guys". Ironically, I do it when everyone is a woman. It's a word I learned as gender neutral and always used as such. I feel this is annoying enough to enough women that I have to stop, but I do sometimes slip (normally when my TTRPG group have their characters sitting in a pub talking about something inconsequential for half an hour, when we only have 3 hours to save the world, so I'm trying to get them back on track). I always apologise and correct myself.

Culture in the west assumes men are superior, and our language follows through with that. Men are not the only ones guilty of using patriarchal language -- we've all been indoctrinated into it (unless we are super lucky to have had parents who actively worked against that). What's important is that we try, recognise when we get it wrong, and try to do better.

Quote
* some I'm very jealous about cause what I have read about these group ride/hikes/camping trips is just what I want to do. The write up sound just like great fun were had. Many times without that "I'm better/faster/stronger/have better gear than you", that you often get on male dominated rides. Which have stopped me a few times joining a club or group trip/hike/etc.

The Dumb Run was like this and wasn't X only. What I've found really helps is when all the people on a ride know each other in some way and are going to have to continue to interact and be friends afterwards. And sometimes that's down to the organiser setting out expectations in advance. For the Dumb Run I always made it clear there would be no dropping people, there was no get there faster, it was a sociable ride that wasn't so much organised as a bunch of friends choosing to ride the same route at the same time, together -- in other words, a group effort to have a good time. I just happened to be the one printing the route. I was the only woman on these rides, but I never had any bother from the others. The Dun Run rides where I've stuck with a small group or even one other person for the ride have been the best. I'm not sure this is in the spirit of audax, really, which comes across as being about one bearded gent vs the elements and his own endurance.

When you take into consideration how hard society drills into women the idea that they are vulnerable on their own, this might be something to think about.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 24 May, 2021, 01:33:54 pm
J.  That's absolutely, fine, thank you - I am awake now and have made note to try harder!

By the way, on the"....... this is what I see" - I can't see anything in your message at that point, i.e. no link or picture, etc.  Can you re-send, or might it be a problem with my browser?

Peter

It's not this precise image, but something similar.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Moi8Rpr

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 01:34:04 pm
J.  That's absolutely, fine, thank you - I am awake now and have made note to try harder!

By the way, on the"....... this is what I see" - I can't see anything in your message at that point, i.e. no link or picture, etc.  Can you re-send, or might it be a problem with my browser?

Peter

Try this link:

https://imgur.com/YA7yx

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 24 May, 2021, 01:39:31 pm
Thanks J and Sam.  I'm on the works computer and it prevents me opening those links.  So now I'm REALLY looking forward to looking at them on my laptop, later!

All the best,

Peter
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Lightning Phil on 24 May, 2021, 01:41:04 pm
I think the species is Ferengi and it’s from Star Trek
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 01:48:45 pm
I think the species is Ferengi and it’s from Star Trek

Yep, specifically my link is to the Grand Negas, and the other link is to Quark...

I may have been binge watching DS9 recently...

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 02:22:11 pm

On Saturday's 100k offroad epic (see veloviewer thread for gory details), for some of it I was listening to a podcast that I thought may be relevant.

I'm a feminist, but*, I don't mind referring you all to another feminists work rather than reproducing it all for you here. As such, I can recommend you all go and listen to this episode of the Guilty episode on being a good ally.

https://guiltyfeminist.com/episode?episode=309

And if you do podcasts, i recommend you just subscribe to the Guilty feminist, it's a great podcast, I really enjoy listening to it on my long rides, tho I did almost crash into a tree when laughing so much to episode 119 (https://guiltyfeminist.com/episode/?episode=154).

J

* This will make sense if you listen to the episode
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 24 May, 2021, 02:28:39 pm
Big fan of that podcast, though I've fallen out of the habit of listening to it (tbh, I think I stopped listening regularly when Sofie Hagen left, which <googles> was four years ago - so maybe I can't really call myself a fan after all...)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 02:33:28 pm
Big fan of that podcast, though I've fallen out of the habit of listening to it (tbh, I think I stopped listening regularly when Sofie Hagen left, which <googles> was four years ago - so maybe I can't really call myself a fan after all...)

I started listening since episode 117 after Emily Chappell linked to it on twitter. I've missed a couple of episodes (due to triggers), but have listened to all the rest since.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 24 May, 2021, 02:56:17 pm
I'm guilty of the gender-neutral 'guys' thing.  In my mind the plural form (especially when used in the second person) is gender neutral, while the singular isn't.  No, this doesn't make sense, but in my defence it's English learned by osmosis, so regional and generational differences are par for the course, and consistency goes straight out the window.

But I've been making an effort to avoid it, mainly due to arabella's posts when it came up previously.  Since I've been actively thinking about how I use the term I've noticed that it's something I'd only do in speech, not writing.

For an formal and inclusive way of addressing a group, may I suggest "Friends and enemies..." Not only does it avoid gendered terms, but it goes down well with the Klingons.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Karla on 24 May, 2021, 03:36:31 pm
English is highly irregular and has very few if any rules that are absolute.  It's the open source hodgepodge of the language world.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Shugg McGraw on 24 May, 2021, 04:49:51 pm
Entered one of the Belgian Ettixx sportives - The Volvo Classic - a couple of years ago.  This was not women only but was specifically geared towards getting women to participate.  On the day there were over 10,000 people doing it and probably a 60/40 split of women v men.  It was great.  When you finished you were directed to free champagne (women only), free massage (women only) and free bike wash (women only).  I bought some frites, sat in the sun, and watched women drinking free champagne.  I don't know how the women felt but I was pretty happy.  Seemed like a good model.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2021, 04:54:08 pm
Entered one of the Belgian Ettixx sportives - The Volvo Classic - a couple of years ago.  This was not women only but was specifically geared towards getting women to participate.  On the day there were over 10,000 people doing it and probably a 60/40 split of women v men.  It was great.  When you finished you were directed to free champagne (women only), free massage (women only) and free bike wash (women only).  I bought some frites, sat in the sun, and watched women drinking free champagne.  I don't know how the women felt but I was pretty happy.  Seemed like a good model.

Dunno about the rest of you, but If AUK ran more BRM events with free massage, champagne, and a bike wash at the end, I'd consider doing more of them!

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 24 May, 2021, 05:07:45 pm
Entered one of the Belgian Ettixx sportives - The Volvo Classic - a couple of years ago.  This was not women only but was specifically geared towards getting women to participate.  On the day there were over 10,000 people doing it and probably a 60/40 split of women v men.  It was great.  When you finished you were directed to free champagne (women only), free massage (women only) and free bike wash (women only).  I bought some frites, sat in the sun, and watched women drinking free champagne.  I don't know how the women felt but I was pretty happy.  Seemed like a good model.

Dunno about the rest of you, but If AUK ran more BRM events with free massage, champagne, and a bike wash at the end, I'd consider doing more of them!

J

I once did a tri with free massage and snacks (not champagne). It also was great.

If AUK did events like this, I'd buy a new damn audax machine (sorry Fingal) just to take part, lung goblins or no lung goblins.

Thing is, the comment about events with more women participating is right -- they have a different feel altogether. I can't help but think if we had more rides that were welcoming to women, the aspects that made them more welcoming to women would also make them more enjoyable for (many, if not most) men.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 24 May, 2021, 05:18:41 pm
I can't help but think if we had more rides that were welcoming to women, the aspects that made them more welcoming to women would also make them more enjoyable for (many, if not most) men.

Hell yeah! We're not all in it for the hair shirt.

I did have massages at the end of my event one year - not free, alas, but not charging very much. (One of the riders runs a sports physio business and he asked if he could set up at the finish - though it was one of his staff doing the massages rather than him. Went down very well.)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 24 May, 2021, 05:32:18 pm
I don't know how many are in it for the hair shirt but they're quite loud about it. Though I think that's to an extent another inclusion thing. I'm not inspired by the hair shirt, I'm not too interested in the data, I'm not keen on champagne but food at the finish, yes please. And it's not just the things that make it more welcoming to women make it more enjoyable for men too, the presence of women – or generally a wider variety of people, in terms of age, race, attitude, bike type, etc – tend to make events (and the whole of life) more pleasant and interesting.

Oddly though, or maybe it's not odd, I find the idea of women only (or Group X only) audaxes and events quite good, but the idea of champagne or whatever for women (or whichever group) only grates, strikes as inequitable. (Or do I mean unequal or unfair? We're back to the kids and the fence again.)

Ed: I think I mean unequal with a touch of inequitable but not unfair. Maybe, would depend amongst other things on how or whether it was presented/advertised in advance.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 24 May, 2021, 06:45:31 pm
Quote
correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

It's kinda funny!
But that's not a great excuse for making sweeping negative comments usually.  I guess I'm not "reading the room" on this one, carry on.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 24 May, 2021, 07:48:19 pm
Quote
correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

It's kinda funny!
But that's not a great excuse for making sweeping negative comments usually.  I guess I'm not "reading the room" on this one, carry on.

I think you are doing a #notallmen
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 24 May, 2021, 09:10:40 pm
Gentles all,

Thank you for the the largely respectful and constructive shift in tone and contributions over the last few days, and for the responses to
So what I'm perpetually baffled by is: if, say, half the population's immediate reaction to provocations like these are "oh, you must have a small penis"
* are the men aware of this?
* if not, how do they think they're being perceived by the women involved?
* how does the point-scoring within the group work? Do they get kudos for random acts of intimidation? What's being demonstrated or proven here, and do they really think that this is equivalent to being 'strong' or 'manly' or 'someone to respect'?
* and does this outweigh the automatic assumption of inadequacy from those outside the group?


I just don't get it.


There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.


I know I've posted it before, but this is an accurate reflection of the sort of interactions I get with random strangers while cycling:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151169/

That paper's interesting (I've not seen it before). I'm not sure the results are particularly surprising - I guess many of us could have intuited the same - but it has a different sort of clout when it's presented in that way and in that context*. I'm wary of attributing the results to androgens (male hormones) as that feels too close to "boys will be boys" and dismissing aggression as an inescapable consequence of biology. It would be interesting to repeat the same exercise in Japan, for example.

Two things that stood out for me were the passing reference to teenage girls largely ignoring the researcher on the unicycle. I'm pretty sure by that age I would have been practiced in things like not turning when you hear an approaching car with a beeping horn, and not making eye contact with men or teenage boys when you pass them. Also being socialised to expect danger and being drilled to not interact with strangers (I think Sam mentioned this sort of thing too). I'd like there to be an exploration of the social contributors to the lack of reaction, rather than saying it's a lack of curiosity or similar.

The author also came really close to indicating there might be class differences (social factors!) with his observation that indicators of higher status accompanied less aggression / fewer comments. I observe the relevant thread here is oiks shouting stuff at cyclists.


It needs somebody to organise a women only audax, otherwise it will never happen.

Seasoned organisers: maybe mentoring women to organise events might be a thing to try? Shadowing someone as they go through the process, co-organising one, designing their own with support if needed (and with leeway to change the 'normal' format as they see fit). That sort of a progression?



However, it is not solely directed at females (+).

Hey Peter, if the (+) here is doing the work I think it's doing then that's noted and also appreciated - thanks.

"Females" winds me up as well, as does "girls" for women and, a word of warning chaps, I know some people who really react strongly against "ladies", too! Women is probably the safest starting point.

Side note: I know some people use womxn to indicate an inclusivity of trans and non-binary people, but I inderstand this has questionable origins of a TERF-y nature, so I try and avoid it.



On the day there were over 10,000 people doing it and probably a 60/40 split of women v men.  It was great.  When you finished you were directed to free champagne (women only), free massage (women only) and free bike wash (women only).

I entered one of the big 24 hour mountain bike events a few years ago. The women:men ratio was very noticeable from my perspective (I did calculate it at one point, maybe 15% not men, but that's a very hazy memory). Free massage also on offer, but in full view of everyone - devil's in the details, eh.


Thing is, the comment about events with more women participating is right -- they have a different feel altogether. I can't help but think if we had more rides that were welcoming to women, the aspects that made them more welcoming to women would also make them more enjoyable for (many, if not most) men.

Yup. Partner this with barakta's reminder to do the work to not exclude other, more discriminated against and often intersecting, characteristics, and we'd be on to a winner!





* Science and academia as colonial and patriarchal systems, I know, I know.


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 24 May, 2021, 09:21:36 pm


However, it is not solely directed at females (+).

Hey Peter, if the (+) here is doing the work I think it's doing then that's noted and also appreciated - thanks.



Thank you, Nikki!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 24 May, 2021, 09:41:27 pm
Quote
correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

It's kinda funny!
But that's not a great excuse for making sweeping negative comments usually.  I guess I'm not "reading the room" on this one, carry on.

I'm really not seeing what you're seeing in the phrase.

To me, "bikesplaining" sounds like a term that might be used to describe specific instances of a narrowly defined type of behaviour - nothing sweeping or generalised about it - but I've never seen it used in the wild, so feel free to cite examples of it being used in the way you describe – I'd be happy to be disabused.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 24 May, 2021, 09:44:34 pm
I know I've posted it before, but this is an accurate reflection of the sort of interactions I get with random strangers while cycling:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151169/

That paper's interesting (I've not seen it before). I'm not sure the results are particularly surprising - I guess many of us could have intuited the same - but it has a different sort of clout when it's presented in that way and in that context*. I'm wary of attributing the results to androgens (male hormones) as that feels too close to "boys will be boys" and dismissing aggression as an inescapable consequence of biology. It would be interesting to repeat the same exercise in Japan, for example.

I wouldn't read too much into the 'effect of androgens' and 'evolutionary basis of humour' conclusions.  It's SOP in social psychology to do some sort of experiment (preferably on psychology undergraduates), observe a correlation and then leap to wild conclusions.  If anyone would like to fund me to do a study into whether the biological nature of the wild conclusions is affected by what gains support for further research then please write your name on the list hanging from my office door between the hours of 9 and 11 on a Tuesday...

(The other thing about social psychology studies is that some of them are indistinguishable from satire.)


Quote
Two things that stood out for me were the passing reference to teenage girls largely ignoring the researcher on the unicycle. I'm pretty sure by that age I would have been practiced in things like not turning when you hear an approaching car with a beeping horn, and not making eye contact with men or teenage boys when you pass them. Also being socialised to expect danger and being drilled to not interact with strangers (I think Sam mentioned this sort of thing too). I'd like there to be an exploration of the social contributors to the lack of reaction, rather than saying it's a lack of curiosity or similar.

My female recumbent rider experience is that teenage girls, where they feel like spontaneous interaction with a stranger on an unusual bike at all, go straight from the curiosity of youth to the generally positive comments you expect from adult women.  I'd suggest that most aren't interested in interacting with random strangers, especially the ones that are demonstrably a bit odd.

In general I'd say that women and girls are more inclined to start a random conversation with me when stationary than shout a comment as I ride past, and that female shouting is nearly always positive.  (I do wonder how many are erroneously perceiving me as cripspirational.)

The exceptions are angry motorists, and the occasional teenage girl in a mixed gender group operating by the young man playbook.


Quote
The author also came really close to indicating there might be class differences (social factors!) with his observation that indicators of higher status accompanied less aggression / fewer comments. I observe the relevant thread here is oiks shouting stuff at cyclists.

Quite.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 25 May, 2021, 08:31:00 am
Slight digression, but "Black Girls Hike" is a rather fab group, I follow them on facebook.
Very enjoyable listening to one of the members of Black Girls Hike speak with Clare Balding on
Radio Four's Rambling programme on Saturday 15th May.


Would something similar benefit cycling?
Black cyclists ride audaxes, perhaps?
Just as there are eg Audax Ecosse and Audax Club Mid-Essex, there could be say Audax Black and Audax Women UK. Better names could probably be invented by relevant people. Local experience suggests an enthusiastic club can be a good way to increase and broaden participation and also leads to other interests (Audax Club Bristol now has a thriving sub-group of bakers).
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 25 May, 2021, 09:51:58 am
I've been working on a feature this morning about what men can do to make the world a better place for women. Lots of really interesting stuff that echoes much of what has been said here about male privilege and allyship. Includes quotes from Andrea Simon and Prof Russell Luyt.

Andrea Simon: https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/introducing-evaws-new-director/
Russell Luty: https://www.gre.ac.uk/people/rep/faculty-of-education-and-health/dr-russell-luyt

Won't be in print for a few weeks yet but I'll share more info here when it is, if anyone's interested.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 25 May, 2021, 01:40:41 pm
Local experience suggests an enthusiastic club can be a good way to increase and broaden participation and also leads to other interests (Audax Club Bristol now has a thriving sub-group of bakers).

I'm not sure that baking counts as "other interests" in audax terms.   ;D
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 25 May, 2021, 02:05:39 pm
Local experience suggests an enthusiastic club can be a good way to increase and broaden participation and also leads to other interests (Audax Club Bristol now has a thriving sub-group of bakers).

I'm not sure that baking counts as "other interests" in audax terms.   ;D
Good point. There's knitting too (don't know the male:female balance in that one). AFAIK it's just plain knitting, not making cycling jerseys...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: rafletcher on 25 May, 2021, 03:51:01 pm

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.


Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 25 May, 2021, 04:01:42 pm
I refuse to give that hate rag any clicks. Could you possibly include the text you wish to highlight?

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Gattopardo on 25 May, 2021, 04:11:50 pm
I think the species is Ferengi and it’s from Star Trek

Yep, specifically my link is to the Grand Negas, and the other link is to Quark...

I may have been binge watching DS9 recently...

J

Bit late to that binge watching ;)

Have you watched the expanse?

Now the point of my reply to you, was to mention Deborah Francis White background of her time in the mormons and shows about finding her birth
parents.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 25 May, 2021, 04:22:37 pm

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.


Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/

With reference to earlier posts, "footballer" is not an adjective but I was waiting for someone else to bring that up!   ;)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Gattopardo on 25 May, 2021, 05:19:24 pm
Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

But then I look at my actions and am guilty.  The issue is that I don't see the issue from both sides just mine.  The DM thing, I message people to say hello, ask how they are or ask follow up things that aren't relevant to asking on the forum.  I see it as chatting to one side of the group.   

In all my employment. I had support staff, majority female.  I always took the time to learn birthdays and likes and dislikes and say thank you for helping me.  Say we were somewhere getting lunch and staff were there I would pay for the sandwiches.  If I was nipping out for a snack or coffee run, I would always ask if the support staff wanted anything while out.   Some non support staff thought it was strange, or that I was on the pull were the reasons for doing that.  My gesture was not altruistic, but the intention was to be nice and polite.  Made me think that I was doing the same thing but to a lesser scale.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 25 May, 2021, 05:32:33 pm

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.


Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/

With reference to earlier posts, "footballer" is not an adjective but I was waiting for someone else to bring that up!   ;)
"Pals" is the word that strikes me as horrendously out of place.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 25 May, 2021, 05:37:35 pm

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.


Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/

With reference to earlier posts, "footballer" is not an adjective but I was waiting for someone else to bring that up!   ;)
"Pals" is the word that strikes me as horrendously out of place.

Similarly, I always find 'quizzed' a bit odd in headlines like that.  "Fingers on the buzzers... Who can account for their whereabouts on the night of the 25th?"
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 25 May, 2021, 05:53:23 pm
What does the buzzing depends on where you stick the electrodes in such cases, I imagine.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: De Sisti on 25 May, 2021, 06:02:07 pm
That is not sarcasm. It is applauding you for having the courage to report the security guard.
Apology will be accepted when it's offered.
Apology offered.  :-)
Why you thought I was having a go at you, I will never know. Apology accepted.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 25 May, 2021, 06:12:12 pm
Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

But then I look at my actions and am guilty.  The issue is that I don't see the issue from both sides just mine.  The DM thing, I message people to say hello, ask how they are or ask follow up things that aren't relevant to asking on the forum.  I see it as chatting to one side of the group.

There's a big difference between DMing someone to discuss some nuance that's verging off-topic (as long as your DMee is happy with this, of course), and DMing someone on the basis that everything they are saying on thread is posturing for the purposes of looking good in public, and in private they will agree with you because you are obviously right so anything posted in disagreement is either deliberate virtue-signalling or a case of misunderstanding. If only you can berate them some more with hyperbolic examples, they will confess to agreement! What if all audaxes were women only? AUK wouldn't get revenue from men any more!

That's the kind of DM I was getting. It's a bit like being doorstepped by a politician from a party whose policies you disagree with fundamentally.

Is your DMee a friend? Are you on friendly terms, even? Are they likely to appreciate you sending a private message to catch up with them? Are you genuinely offering to help in a way you don't want the whole forum knowing about but which the DMee would definitely appreciate? Go for it.

Do you have the kind of relationship where you discuss things that might not be suitable for public view? If so, no problem!

Are you DMing to avoid public scrutiny of some outrageous nonsense, or because you don't believe the persona portrayed on the forum can be real because that persona doesn't agree with you? Or, worse, are you cold-calling with a personal proposition? No! Do not!

Quote
In all my employment. I had support staff, majority female.  I always took the time to learn birthdays and likes and dislikes and say thank you for helping me.  Say we were somewhere getting lunch and staff were there I would pay for the sandwiches.  If I was nipping out for a snack or coffee run, I would always ask if the support staff wanted anything while out.   Some non support staff thought it was strange, or that I was on the pull were the reasons for doing that.  My gesture was not altruistic, but the intention was to be nice and polite.  Made me think that I was doing the same thing but to a lesser scale.

The phenomenon of men being nice because they want to have sex is ridiculously widespread. The concept of "the friend zone" is entirely because too many men[1] consider personal relationships to be transactional, and if they've paid for dinner, for instance, then the woman should be offering to share her bed. It is SO prevalent that some women now look upon men who are genuinely nice with suspicion, and this is truly tragic, and is yet another reason why men need to step up and say this stuff Is Not Cool. Men who indulge in gameifying relationships and men who are "red pillers" or who consider themselves to be "Men's Rights Activists" have ruined it for the rest of you. Sorry. Women treating the behaviour with suspicion is a valid defence that has come about because of the selfish jerks who whine about not being able to get laid despite being "nice".

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/nice-guy-syndrome-dating-tactics-persona-men-women-relationships-a7476651.html

The problem for women is that it's hard to tell when a man is being nice because he's genuinely nice, and when he's going to escalate into entitled bullshit until he does it.

Sam
[1] More than zero men.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 25 May, 2021, 06:30:04 pm
There's a big difference between DMing someone to discuss some nuance that's verging off-topic (as long as your DMee is happy with this, of course), and DMing someone on the basis that everything they are saying on thread is posturing for the purposes of looking good in public, and in private they will agree with you because you are obviously right so anything posted in disagreement is either deliberate virtue-signalling or a case of misunderstanding. If only you can berate them some more with hyperbolic examples, they will confess to agreement!

Very well, we shall resume in an hour.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 25 May, 2021, 06:31:55 pm
Very well, we shall resume in an hour.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/

That is amazing.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 25 May, 2021, 06:48:35 pm
Quote
correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

It's kinda funny!
But that's not a great excuse for making sweeping negative comments usually.  I guess I'm not "reading the room" on this one, carry on.

I think you are doing a #notallmen
Are you sure? It's a meme that has ducked and dived into many forms over the years, but I think this bit of the WIki page is by far the most common inferrence
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 25 May, 2021, 06:50:05 pm
Very well, we shall resume in an hour.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Enjoying this series! This one seems kind of relevant too: http://wondermark.com/1k71/
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 25 May, 2021, 07:12:50 pm
Quote
correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

It's kinda funny!
But that's not a great excuse for making sweeping negative comments usually.  I guess I'm not "reading the room" on this one, carry on.

I think you are doing a #notallmen
Are you sure? It's a meme that has ducked and dived into many forms over the years, but I think this bit of the WIki page is by far the most common inferrence

Slate writer Phil Plait wrote that the hashtag was

not an unexpected response. However, it's also not a helpful one. Why is it not helpful to say "not all men are like that"? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don't need you to tell them. Second, it's defensive. When people are defensive, they aren't listening to the other person; they're busy thinking of ways to defend themselves. I wat The discussion isn't about the men who aren't a problem. (Though, I'll note, it can beched this happen on Twitter, over and again. Third, the people saying it aren't furthering the conversation, they're sidetracking it.. I'll get back to that.) Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying. Fourth—and this is important, so listen carefully—when a woman is walking down the street, or on a blind date, or, yes, in an elevator alone, she doesn't know which group you're in. You might be the potential best guy ever in the history of history, but there's no way for her to know that. A fraction of men out there are most definitely not in that group. Which are you? Inside your head you know, but outside your head it's impossible to

See bolded. Both of them. Point being that QG wasn't making a sweeping negative comment. She was addressing a particular behaviour.
But anyway, she can explain/defend herself if she so chooses. She doesn't need me to do it for her. Equally, maybe I misunderstood your point, either way it isn't a big deal.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 25 May, 2021, 07:24:57 pm
wasn't making a sweeping negative comment. She was addressing a particular behaviour.
OK, "comment" was a poor choice of word.

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it) and churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ;) ).

People can be irritating - deal with it. I'm pretty sure there are more productive things to discuss if we want to promote womens sport and the like. (it wasn't ME that brought it up first, BTW!)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Lightning Phil on 25 May, 2021, 07:28:17 pm
I got a bit lost for a while in Wondermark

http://wondermark.com/c1492/
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 25 May, 2021, 07:31:06 pm
wasn't making a sweeping negative comment. She was addressing a particular behaviour.
OK, "comment" was a poor choice of word.

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it) and churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ;) ).

People can be irritating - deal with it. I'm pretty sure there are more productive things to discuss if we want to promote womens sport and the like. (it wasn't ME that brought it up first, BTW!)

Cool. I guess that is your approach to racism, too??

Point being that it isn't just 'people being irritating', because it isn't people, it's a subset of people behaving in a certain way to a different subset because they are that subset. And you have, I think, all of the women posting here saying that they have experienced it.

I don't think "deal with it" really cuts it, to be honest, Matt.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 25 May, 2021, 08:06:52 pm
OK, "comment" was a poor choice of word.

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it) and churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ;) ).

People can be irritating - deal with it. I'm pretty sure there are more productive things to discuss if we want to promote womens sport and the like. (it wasn't ME that brought it up first, BTW!)

This is a thread about women only audaxes.

Let's see how some comments I've heard over the years might sound to you, gender-twisted.

"I didn't know men could ride fixed!"

"I suppose it's possible some men might be strong enough to ride a fixed gear."

"Aren't you afraid being out alone? What if a strange woman attacked you?"

"I am making a movie [an adult explicit movie] about muscular men with short hair. Would you be in it?"

"You won't be able to put that tyre back on. Men's hands are too weak." Grabs wheel. "I'll do it for you."

"What do you do if you have a mechanical? Call your wife?"

"Careful there, handsome. You might break a nail."

Or some gender-twisted (wo)mensplaining/bikesplaining:

"I didn't know there were men who could build their own wheels."

"Are you telling me there's a man who knows how to put a chain on? I thought you'd be too worried about getting your hands dirty."

"Make sure you get that saddle height right, love. You don't want to be stuck when it goes up your [arse]." This was followed by some disgusting sound effects.

"That's not a 70" fixed. Must be a 63. Men can't ride more than 63" -- if you know what I mean, ha ha. Everyone knows men aren't too good at maths."

Imagine getting crap like that every time you were out with a bunch of people of the opposite sex, and then being told it has nothing to do with sexism but just people being idiots and you should "just deal with it." Why would you? I mean, really? Why would you?

A straight womansplaining might be a woman telling a man he's not putting a nappy on right, even if he's a stay-at-home dad with 5 kids, just because women know best how to take care of babies. For the record, if it needed saying, that also would be prejudiced and wrong.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 25 May, 2021, 08:11:55 pm
https://www.manfeels-park.com/

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 25 May, 2021, 08:12:05 pm
Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it)

The term specifically describes a man explaining to a woman something that she already knows. So yes, by definition, it is only men who do that. Like, duh.

I'm sure you can find examples of a woman explaining something to a man that he already knows, but that doesn't prove that mansplaining isn't a real phenomenon.

Quote
churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ;) ).

Yes, the term has become popular and over-used - and people use it loosely, or more broadly than its original sense - but again that doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomenon.

And your reaction to the term cropping up in this particular discussion comes across as strangely... defensive.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 25 May, 2021, 11:12:41 pm
Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

I'll bypass the rest of the post. I'm sure you're lovely and all your underlings think so too.

It's not for you, me or anyone else to determine whether any exclusionary leisure events are necessary. It's actually none of our business - if someone wishes to run a ride for left-handed butchers, so what? Running that ride makes absolutely no difference to the thousands of rides that are held for people who don't fit those criteria. However, even though they don't exclude left-handed butchers, those rides don't quite fit their needs. I have no problem with anyone determining what criteria they use to define their event; the likelihood is that they have a damn good reason for excluding some people - just as I do when I have a party at my house. It just isn't an issue for anyone else to comment on. If you're not invited, tough.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 26 May, 2021, 09:22:42 am
Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

But then I look at my actions and am guilty.  The issue is that I don't see the issue from both sides just mine.  The DM thing, I message people to say hello, ask how they are or ask follow up things that aren't relevant to asking on the forum.  I see it as chatting to one side of the group.   

Hi Gattopardo, I agree that it's wider societal changes that we all need to work towards changing, and that the benefits from that will percolate through to cycling events eventually. It's a long game! in the meantime, making space for alternative environments is one of the tools we've got that we can action now.

I think if you've got that sort of understanding, alongside appreciating that your experience is not universal, then it's less likely that your DM practices are the problematic sort. The trolling ones, I suspect, are done very knowingly.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 26 May, 2021, 09:25:18 am
Despite forumming for ooooh 16 or 17 years I'm still perplexed that anyone could take themselves so seriously as to want to perpetuate an online bickering via PM. And that is before we even get to the creepy patriarchal stuff.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 26 May, 2021, 10:20:50 am
I committed the sin of mansplaining early last year. Only afterwards with horror realised what I'd done. Still really embarrassed, thought I knew better. Was being really quite rude to someone I like and admire.


It is easily done; just requires being thoughtless and oblivious  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 26 May, 2021, 10:32:19 am
Going back to the groups of jeering, intimidating, bullying men: Episode 2 of this podcast https://www.sceneonradio.org/episode-48-aint-no-amoeba-men-part-2/ (which Nikki linked to a few pages back, so it won't answer the "why" question which I think she asked, but read on) discusses violence and mentions testosterone and the fact that in societies worldwide, it's men who are responsible for the bulk of violence. But it goes on to point out that hormones don't act in a vacuum; their effect is modified by the individual and by culture. But in fact culture and biology can't really be separated; culture is created by biological beings using the methods biologically available to them, and then feeds back into that biology in an endless loop. (Which might imply that the creation of cultures is a biological need common to a wide variety of species? But that's just me speculating and really belongs elsewhere.)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 26 May, 2021, 12:54:00 pm
I committed the sin of mansplaining early last year. Only afterwards with horror realised what I'd done. Still really embarrassed, thought I knew better. Was being really quite rude to someone I like and admire.


It is easily done; just requires being thoughtless and oblivious  :facepalm:

It is easily done, especially if that is the sort of behaviour you have had modelled for you from first consciousness, and amplified literally everywhere, even by women* who are socialised into it too.

*#notallwomen  :P
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Gattopardo on 26 May, 2021, 03:07:30 pm
I got a bit lost for a while in Wondermark

http://wondermark.com/c1492/

Have been known to do that on social media, usually if the person hits my triggers of right wing forin bad sort of thing.

Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

I'll bypass the rest of the post. I'm sure you're lovely and all your underlings think so too.

It's not for you, me or anyone else to determine whether any exclusionary leisure events are necessary. It's actually none of our business - if someone wishes to run a ride for left-handed butchers, so what? Running that ride makes absolutely no difference to the thousands of rides that are held for people who don't fit those criteria. However, even though they don't exclude left-handed butchers, those rides don't quite fit their needs. I have no problem with anyone determining what criteria they use to define their event; the likelihood is that they have a damn good reason for excluding some people - just as I do when I have a party at my house. It just isn't an issue for anyone else to comment on. If you're not invited, tough.


Not so sure about the lovely.

I sort of agree with you, but the thing that I'm trying to say is tho it is none of my business I understand why it occurs.


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Gattopardo on 26 May, 2021, 03:20:08 pm
Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

But then I look at my actions and am guilty.  The issue is that I don't see the issue from both sides just mine.  The DM thing, I message people to say hello, ask how they are or ask follow up things that aren't relevant to asking on the forum.  I see it as chatting to one side of the group.

There's a big difference between DMing someone to discuss some nuance that's verging off-topic (as long as your DMee is happy with this, of course), and DMing someone on the basis that everything they are saying on thread is posturing for the purposes of looking good in public, and in private they will agree with you because you are obviously right so anything posted in disagreement is either deliberate virtue-signalling or a case of misunderstanding. If only you can berate them some more with hyperbolic examples, they will confess to agreement! What if all audaxes were women only? AUK wouldn't get revenue from men any more!

That's the kind of DM I was getting. It's a bit like being doorstepped by a politician from a party whose policies you disagree with fundamentally.

Is your DMee a friend? Are you on friendly terms, even? Are they likely to appreciate you sending a private message to catch up with them? Are you genuinely offering to help in a way you don't want the whole forum knowing about but which the DMee would definitely appreciate? Go for it.

Do you have the kind of relationship where you discuss things that might not be suitable for public view? If so, no problem!

Are you DMing to avoid public scrutiny of some outrageous nonsense, or because you don't believe the persona portrayed on the forum can be real because that persona doesn't agree with you? Or, worse, are you cold-calling with a personal proposition? No! Do not!

Quote
In all my employment. I had support staff, majority female.  I always took the time to learn birthdays and likes and dislikes and say thank you for helping me.  Say we were somewhere getting lunch and staff were there I would pay for the sandwiches.  If I was nipping out for a snack or coffee run, I would always ask if the support staff wanted anything while out.   Some non support staff thought it was strange, or that I was on the pull were the reasons for doing that.  My gesture was not altruistic, but the intention was to be nice and polite.  Made me think that I was doing the same thing but to a lesser scale.

The phenomenon of men being nice because they want to have sex is ridiculously widespread. The concept of "the friend zone" is entirely because too many men[1] consider personal relationships to be transactional, and if they've paid for dinner, for instance, then the woman should be offering to share her bed. It is SO prevalent that some women now look upon men who are genuinely nice with suspicion, and this is truly tragic, and is yet another reason why men need to step up and say this stuff Is Not Cool. Men who indulge in gameifying relationships and men who are "red pillers" or who consider themselves to be "Men's Rights Activists" have ruined it for the rest of you. Sorry. Women treating the behaviour with suspicion is a valid defence that has come about because of the selfish jerks who whine about not being able to get laid despite being "nice".

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/nice-guy-syndrome-dating-tactics-persona-men-women-relationships-a7476651.html

The problem for women is that it's hard to tell when a man is being nice because he's genuinely nice, and when he's going to escalate into entitled bullshit until he does it.

Sam
[1] More than zero men.

Suspect I am turning this in to a me thing, and going way off topic.  Thank you tho.


I committed the sin of mansplaining early last year. Only afterwards with horror realised what I'd done. Still really embarrassed, thought I knew better. Was being really quite rude to someone I like and admire.


It is easily done; just requires being thoughtless and oblivious  :facepalm:

I have been known to mansplain and if I notice I stop and apologise.  Hope that if I start mansplaining that the person can tell me so I can be more self aware.

Also sorry more about me and irrelevant.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 26 May, 2021, 06:02:04 pm
Cool. I guess that is your approach to racism, too??

Point being that it isn't just 'people being irritating', <snip>

I don't think "deal with it" really cuts it, to be honest, Matt.
Oh my - are you now operating a parody account? That is hilarious.

First you try to associate the behaviour with sexual assault and violence against women.
Then - getting a bit desperate now, perhaps - you put it on a level with racism!

Sorry, but I'm happy to stick with what I posted. Your ridiculous comparisons leave me unmoved (except for making me smirk, I admit to that.)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 26 May, 2021, 06:09:27 pm

"I am making a movie [an adult explicit movie] about muscular men with short hair. Would you be in it?"
Are we even talking about the same thing?
Quote
Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".[1][2][3][4] Author Rebecca Solnit ascribed the phenomenon to a combination of "overconfidence and cluelessness".[5] Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defined it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman".[6]

In its original use, mansplaining differed from other forms of condescension in that it was said to be rooted in the assumption that a man is likely to be more knowledgeable than a woman

Imagine getting crap like that every time you were out with a bunch of people of the opposite sex, and then being told it has nothing to do with sexism but just people being idiots and you should "just deal with it." Why would you? I mean, really? Why would you?
I'm talking about mansplaining. I'm not talking about every bit of sexist rude threatening behaviour you have ever been on the end of.

The difference is quite clear to me.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 26 May, 2021, 06:11:00 pm
Cool. I guess that is your approach to racism, too??

Point being that it isn't just 'people being irritating', <snip>

I don't think "deal with it" really cuts it, to be honest, Matt.
Oh my - are you now operating a parody account? That is hilarious.

First you try to associate the behaviour with sexual assault and violence against women.
Then - getting a bit desperate now, perhaps - you put it on a level with racism!

Sorry, but I'm happy to stick with what I posted. Your ridiculous comparisons leave me unmoved (except for making me smirk, I admit to that.)

Bolded: What on earth are you on about? Are you on drugs?

Racism: you've completely and utterly missed the point. I haven't put it on a level with racism. I'm noting your dismissal of a (relatively) unempowered group's concerns and asking if you do the same to other marginalised groups.

The fact that you have misread this so badly underlines the likelihood that in your initial post you were doing a #notallmen. You don't realise it because you don't take women's concerns with any seriousness at all, which is at the nub of this entire thread.

That part doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is your blindness to the obvious. You are normally a little more perspicacious.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Karla on 26 May, 2021, 06:23:31 pm
Despite forumming for ooooh 16 or 17 years I'm still perplexed that anyone could take themselves so seriously as to want to perpetuate an online bickering via PM. And that is before we even get to the creepy patriarchal stuff.

You clearly never got on the wrong side of Mal Volio in your 16-17 years.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 26 May, 2021, 06:29:51 pm
First you try to associate the behaviour with sexual assault and violence against women.
Then - getting a bit desperate now, perhaps - you put it on a level with racism!

It's similar in the sense that people who deny black people are treated differently because of institutional racism also exist. "They're not racist, they're just twats."

Your argument seems to fall along the same lines, so I can see the similarity. "You're not being subjected to sexism, love, these are what we men call 'rude people.' Don't you worry your silly little head about it, I'm sure they are rude to everyone."

No. They are not. The very definition of "mansplaining" is a man refusing to accept a women has equal or more knowledge than the man doing the explaining. Men don't tend to pull this particularly irritating trick on their fellow men. They might disagree, but they don't do shit like this:

Quote
We were preparing to leave, when our host said, “No, stay a little longer so I can talk to you.” He was an imposing man who’d made a lot of money.

He kept us waiting while the other guests drifted out into the summer night, and then sat us down at his authentically grainy wood table and said to me, “So? I hear you’ve written a couple of books.”

I replied, “Several, actually.”

He said, in the way you encourage your friend’s seven-year-old to describe flute practice, “And what are they about?”

They were actually about quite a few different things, the six or seven out by then, but I began to speak only of the most recent on that summer day in 2003, River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West, my book on the annihilation of time and space and the industrialization of everyday life.

He cut me off soon after I mentioned Muybridge. “And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?”

So caught up was I in my assigned role as ingénue that I was perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that another book on the same subject had come out simultaneously and I’d somehow missed it. He was already telling me about the very important book — with that smug look I know so well in a man holding forth, eyes fixed on the fuzzy far horizon of his own authority...

So, Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, “That’s her book.” Or tried to interrupt him anyway.

But he just continued on his way. She had to say, “That’s her book” three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a nineteenth-century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn’t read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless — for a moment, before he began holding forth again.

https://tomdispatch.com/rebecca-solnit-the-archipelago-of-arrogance/

I don't know a single man who has gone into a bike shop and been very specific about what they want, only for the shop person to insist he is, in fact, wrong, and what he needs is this completely different thing. I've known men to be told the thing they want isn't available, and this other thing might work instead. I've even known a shop person say he wouldn't recommend that particular thing, because this other thing does the same job only better. I have never, ever seen a man be told, "No, love, you don't want that. You want this."

Quote
Sorry, but I'm happy to stick with what I posted. Your ridiculous comparisons leave me unmoved (except for making me smirk, I admit to that.)

So you're just gaslighting now, is that it? Or being a troll, maybe? It's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 26 May, 2021, 06:32:24 pm
Matt, has your account been, as Flatus would say, "bonjed"?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 26 May, 2021, 06:35:06 pm
Despite forumming for ooooh 16 or 17 years I'm still perplexed that anyone could take themselves so seriously as to want to perpetuate an online bickering via PM. And that is before we even get to the creepy patriarchal stuff.

You clearly never got on the wrong side of Mal Volio in your 16-17 years.

Oh I didn't say I was unaware that people did this, just that I still completely fail to understand why they would do it. Funny you should bring up Malvolio...I did get on his wrong side in the end, he blocked me on Facebook  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 26 May, 2021, 06:39:43 pm
Matt, has your account been, as Flatus would say, "bonjed"?

I've never seen Bonj and Matt c in the same room.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 26 May, 2021, 09:55:20 pm
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 27 May, 2021, 08:14:16 am
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?

Personally, I think it's a great idea. Unfortunately, some people seem to have taken offence at the suggestion and so they need explaining why it actually is a great idea and not a threat to them.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 27 May, 2021, 08:19:54 am
No. They are not. The very definition of "mansplaining" is a man refusing to accept a women has equal or more knowledge than the man doing the explaining. Men don't tend to pull this particularly irritating trick on their fellow men. They might disagree, but they don't do shit like this:

I was going to mention that story after seeing Rebecca Solnit's name cited in the definition of mansplaining mattc shared. Classic. (Sharing the definition of mansplaining with you here was an interesting move - do you think he was being ironic?)

There's also the time Russell Brand explained feminism to Deborah Frances White. File under you couldn't make it up.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Tommyp27 on 27 May, 2021, 08:25:21 am
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?

Personally, I think it's a great idea. Unfortunately, some people seem to have taken offence at the suggestion and so they need explaining why it actually is a great idea and not a threat to them.

If it gets more women on bike great, same with if someone wants to organise a BAME audax. No one asking for these things is asking for permanent segregation, just to create a safe space for people to do these things. Hopefully it then actually creates a stronger atmosphere and actually encourages people to ride together.

It's been a long time coming but hopefully cycling with a zero tolerance to sexism, racism and LBGT+ phobia is just around the corner.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: BrianI on 27 May, 2021, 09:19:52 am
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?
I think it's a great idea, hopefully it will encourage women to take part in mixed gender events in time.

What are your thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Philip Whiteman on 27 May, 2021, 02:17:36 pm
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?
I think it's a great idea, hopefully it will encourage women to take part in mixed gender events in time.

What are your thoughts on this?

I entirely support this idea.  I proposed such an idea two years ago in another place.  Current AUK regulations would require amendment but that is hardly insurmountable as they currently allow for 'all' to enter.  Outside matters meant that I never managed organise such an event though I would willingly help and support an event that is located nearby.

All it takes is somebody to put in the time and effort to launch an event. More often than not, hands firmly hit the floor when a show of hands is requested.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 27 May, 2021, 06:00:59 pm

I was going to mention that story after seeing Rebecca Solnit's name cited in the definition of mansplaining mattc shared. Classic. (Sharing the definition of mansplaining with you here was an interesting move - do you think he was being ironic?)
That's kinda how grown-up polite discussion works, citoyen; quoting respected and/or established sources, where you feel it's relevant to your point.

Surely you've seen this before?
(The main other technique on the web is name-calling, we could try that if you really want ...)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 27 May, 2021, 06:07:04 pm
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?

Personally, I think it's a great idea. Unfortunately, some people seem to have taken offence at the suggestion and so they need explaining why it actually is a great idea and not a threat to them.

If it gets more women on bike great, same with if someone wants to organise a BAME audax. No one asking for these things is asking for permanent segregation, just to create a safe space for people to do these things. Hopefully it then actually creates a stronger atmosphere and actually encourages people to ride together.

Yup. I have a few issues with segregation e.g. women-only clubs, but this is nothing of the sort, so go for it!

<snip...>

All it takes is somebody to put in the time and effort to launch an event. More often than not, hands firmly hit the floor when a show of hands is requested.
Well quite - talk is cheap on the internet.

I'd like to give a shout-out to @fboab who - some pages back - offered to run a group perm. Seems like a constructive move  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 27 May, 2021, 06:12:09 pm
Ooh the irony
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 27 May, 2021, 06:20:16 pm
Ooh the irony
<yawn> Do you and Citoyen have a different record?

(Have I "bonjed"? Whatever that may mean - you've been using it for years, and I've generally inferred that it means "disagreeing with Flatus". Oh my! )
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 27 May, 2021, 06:28:05 pm
That's kinda how grown-up polite discussion works, citoyen; quoting respected and/or established sources, where you feel it's relevant to your point.

First, you're mansplaining mansplaining.

Second, the definition you quoted contradicts what you previously said about it:

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it) and churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ;) ).

If you'd done a wee bit more research, you'd have come across the Rebecca Solnit story about having her own book explained to her by a man who hadn't read it. That is not just "an annoying behaviour", it's a particular type of annoying behaviour that men perpetrate against women.

As for "churning it out etc", the term didn't enter the discussion until page 6, where it was mentioned in passing by nikki among a lot of other more interesting and useful stuff, so you're basically narrowing in on something that isn't significant, which is a cheap way of derailing the discussion as a means of deflection. And again, comes across as very defensive.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 27 May, 2021, 08:13:37 pm
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?

Sigh - looks like I failed again.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 27 May, 2021, 08:18:35 pm
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?

Sigh - looks like I failed again.

May I suggest herding cats as a far easier hobby than trying to corral a discussion on an internet forum?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: postie on 27 May, 2021, 09:09:16 pm
As a fairly experience male rider and organizer,  i am more then help to offer any help getting a women only event up and running should any help be required.

On another note, our evening club 10 mile t.t. which i run have attracted a lot of new riders this year with a good number of women new to the sport , i received a very nice e-mail this week from two of them ,telling me how helpful every one has been and thanking me for all my help and advice. .... Any one who knows me may find this hard to believe.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 27 May, 2021, 09:13:05 pm
Ooh the irony
<yawn> Do you and Citoyen have a different record?

(Have I "bonjed"? Whatever that may mean - you've been using it for years, and I've generally inferred that it means "disagreeing with Flatus". Oh my! )

Bonjed refers to Bonj, the previous incarnation of Ben T,  who would argue himself into a corner but with zero realisation that he had done so, and an almost pathological self-awareness to the exclusion of...err...awareness.

So, in that respect, yes. You've Bonjed.

Congratulations 👏
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 27 May, 2021, 09:16:06 pm
So, I understand fboab is organizing a DIY for a group of her friends, who happen to be women. That's great but it's not going to attract people who aren't yet into audax or at least long-distance riding. Are non-AUKs even allowed to do DIYs? I don't think so. Of course there's nothing to stop anyone organizing an audax-style ride for a group of friends outside AUK's auspices. There won't be points but there can still be a time limit, obviously there's a route and of course there's cake. Even badges can made if people really want them.

But the thing is how to attract the people who don't yet know they might be interested? (or am I over-thinking this?)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 27 May, 2021, 09:26:38 pm

Naomi Wu (a woman of colour, working in tech, with a large social media presence - so she knows a thing or two about trolling and harassment), has recently posted a Twitter thread about her blocking policy:

https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1397826777452486658

Quote
"Ok, as a principle, running any social venue- bad money drives out good.

If I run a bar, I get a few rowdy customers, they get a little loud, get a little rude with the staff. But I say "sure but they are paying customers, warm bodies in seats."

The problem is- people see that, it not only sets the standard for acceptable behavior, it means customers who don't want to be around that kind of behavior, who don't want to be associated with it, they don't come back- bad money drives out good.

I'm finding it an interesting not-quite-parallel-but-with-strong-resonances example to think through ideas of community building and example setting.


~~~

Also...

I was wondering if any audax event organisers have ever done a write-up of what's involved in designing, planning and running an event?
Is it the sort of thing where successful folks like to keep their trade secrets to themselves?

I like to know what I'm getting myself in for before I volunteer for anything, so maybe it would be useful to reveal a little of what's behind the curtain so potential organisers can assess whether they'd be suited for it and/or if they've got the resources to take it on.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 27 May, 2021, 09:32:31 pm
Someone has suggested the idea of organising Audax events that are exclusively for women riders.  What do people think about this?

Sigh - looks like I failed again.

May I suggest herding cats as a far easier hobby than trying to corral a discussion on an internet forum?

 ;D
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 27 May, 2021, 11:12:32 pm
From the randon e-list. Disclaimer: I know nothing about it.

Got Randonneuse or Ancienne?

Are you a woman or, an individual who identifies as a woman, who appreciates Audax randonneuring?

Do you know other women, or individuals who identify as women, that enjoy Audax randonneuring?

If you answered yes…Please keep on reading! 

Here are two NEW online resources for women and those who identify as women in Audax randonneuring. The goal is to connect with others to share information, discuss gear, training, nutrition, events, meet up’s, etc.

Private Facebook Group:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/313640953442462

Google groups List-serve:  Rando-ul...@googlegroups.com Instructions to find and join a google group here: https://support.google.com/groups/answer/1067205?hl=en  or you may contact me directly and I will add you or those who are interested in this particular group.

Questions, comments, suggestions, feel free to contact me or post in this group. 

Please share this with your respective membership and other groups/organizations/individuals who may be interested. 

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted

Dawn Piech

Randonneurs USA member
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 27 May, 2021, 11:55:27 pm
That's kinda how grown-up polite discussion works, citoyen; quoting respected and/or established sources, where you feel it's relevant to your point.

First, you're mansplaining mansplaining.


No: I'm trying to politely tell another bloke (that's you, FYI) that he's talking bollocks.
I hope that's still allowed ...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 28 May, 2021, 05:54:58 am
(https://i.ibb.co/h2TxnFY/tenor-1.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: redshift on 28 May, 2021, 10:40:41 am
This thread's great.  There's 13 (13!) pages of shit explaining:

Why I don't do Audax - as I long ago (20+ years) said to Francis, if I want to do a long ride, I'll do a long ride.  Validation and point scoring isn't part of it, let alone being told how to do stuff by someone else.

Why I'm not a member of a club.*

Why I ride on my own, on the roads and avoiding 'cycle paths' and canal banks.

Based on what's been written - my only 'in' to the mentality of those writing - there's quite a few people on here that I'm glad I haven't encountered.

Carry on, team!

*I did join the CTC, but that was mostly for the insurance.  Nowadays they're not even a club.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ruthie on 28 May, 2021, 11:31:03 am

Naomi Wu (a woman of colour, working in tech, with a large social media presence - so she knows a thing or two about trolling and harassment), has recently posted a Twitter thread about her blocking policy:

https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1397826777452486658

Quote
"Ok, as a principle, running any social venue- bad money drives out good.

If I run a bar, I get a few rowdy customers, they get a little loud, get a little rude with the staff. But I say "sure but they are paying customers, warm bodies in seats."

The problem is- people see that, it not only sets the standard for acceptable behavior, it means customers who don't want to be around that kind of behavior, who don't want to be associated with it, they don't come back- bad money drives out good.

I'm finding it an interesting not-quite-parallel-but-with-strong-resonances example to think through ideas of community building and example setting.


~~~

Also...

I was wondering if any audax event organisers have ever done a write-up of what's involved in designing, planning and running an event?
Is it the sort of thing where successful folks like to keep their trade secrets to themselves?

I like to know what I'm getting myself in for before I volunteer for anything, so maybe it would be useful to reveal a little of what's behind the curtain so potential organisers can assess whether they'd be suited for it and/or if they've got the resources to take it on.

Yeah. The principles of community building come back to building relationships, listening for what’s required, wanted, not wanted. Respecting the voices of those in that community, and accepting their aspirations for that community. fboab’s model looks ideal to me.

It only takes one man behaving badly, for a woman to feel like they aren’t in a safe place. As I get older I value women-only spaces more and more, for a number of reasons.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 28 May, 2021, 11:40:57 am
So, I understand fboab is organizing a DIY for a group of her friends, who happen to be women. That's great but it's not going to attract people who aren't yet into audax or at least long-distance riding. Are non-AUKs even allowed to do DIYs? I don't think so. Of course there's nothing to stop anyone organizing an audax-style ride for a group of friends outside AUK's auspices. There won't be points but there can still be a time limit, obviously there's a route and of course there's cake. Even badges can made if people really want them.

But the thing is how to attract the people who don't yet know they might be interested? (or am I over-thinking this?)

Disclaimer: I have been unwell for a while, so I am not offering to organise anything imminently. Not least because I'm pretty far north, and I think an audax stye ride is more likely to attract people if it avoids hills.

BUT. I do have previous for getting non-cyclists into cycling to the point of doing regular sportives and (once, never again they say*) to do an overnight century  ;D.

The target "market" for our purposes comprises women who cycle already, not on e-bikes, but who have yet to try an audax.

Comparing across sports, what tends to attract women into giving something a go is the ability to do so with friends. Like a women's night out, only an endurance event. Tough Mudder attracts groups of young women who want to challenge themselves. Triathlon attracts women looking for an additional challenge that gives them motivation to stay fit (it's how I got into triathlon, having always said I would never ever because I hate running -- I'm massively competitive and don't like to come last in public, so I have to put the work in). Many non- or leisure-cyclists will take on something like a Sportive because it's a challenge that seems feasible to them, and the closed roads (when they are offered) are appealing. Also they know they'll be looked after, to an extent.

So what is it that audax offers that would encourage women to give it a go? I think we'd need to look at women's cycling groups and see what gets the members motivated. It's easy enough to organise a women-only ride (or any ride, really) and invite some people you know will be interested (it's how the Dumb Run got going), it's a whole other thing to get a bunch of strangers to show up on the off chance they might enjoy it.

Part of that is taking away the mystery of not knowing what to expect. It means describing audax in terms that make it sound appealing to people other than leathery hair shirt types. It also means taking away some of the fear of things like being left to ride alone for hours, or having a mechanical and not knowing what to do about it.

So maybe you would have to offer something that isn't quite an audax. Ask people to supply information about how fast and how far they generally ride and if they'd like to be put with other people of similar ability. Ask them if they want to be with friends and make sure the start is set up to facilitate that with easily-identifiable meeting spots. Explain what happens if they ditch, and prepare some suggestions on what their options are -- sportives have a broom wagon, as do triathlons. The big difference with audax is there isn't that kind of support, so you're on your own unless you're with people prepared to ditch with you. Give them enough information that it doesn't matter if they've never done one before and neither have their friends. Maybe even have some way of identifying women who know what it's about and are happy to offer advice. Offer a workshop on basic roadside repair. Take some of the pressure off.

How do you do the equivalent of a triathlon super sprint on an audax? You make it a distance that doesn't seem insane to people who congratulate each other on making 40km, and you take some of the fear away. Maybe even do a short series of increasing distances. "If I can do 50km, 75km is only half that again. If I can do 75km, 100 is only a third of that on top."

Offer things like massages and refreshments afterwards. Make it look like a day they can indulge themselves and forget about their burden of chores (women on average do 16 hours of chores a week compared to a man's 6 - https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women-men-household-chores-domestic-house-gender-norms-a9021586.html ), childcare etc. Offer training advice. I see so many women in both cycling and walking groups talking about their training plans for things like doing the West Highland Way or multiple-day charity rides.

A lot of it is about perception and confidence. Part of the problem is that dodgy male behaviour can knock confidence right back, which impacts both ability and enjoyment.

Sam
*They did not enjoy it at all, while I was riding in perfect summer conditions saying things like, "Wow, isn't this fabulous? And look! Bats! OMG the sun isn't even set. This is AMAZING. I just want to do this ALL THE TIME."

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 28 May, 2021, 12:32:07 pm
Comparing across sports, what tends to attract women into giving something a go is the ability to do so with friends.
I think this is largely true of everyone. We're attracted into doing something our friends are doing.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 28 May, 2021, 01:04:34 pm
Comparing across sports, what tends to attract women into giving something a go is the ability to do so with friends.
I think this is largely true of everyone. We're attracted into doing something our friends are doing.

Agreed. I only specify this because I think it's more so for women, due to aforementioned cultural indoctrination that a woman alone is unsafe. Being with other women she does not know is better than being with men she does not know, but being with friends is safest of all. There's an additional barrier that men do not experience. If we were to attract more women to try it, making it clear that it's perfectly doable for a group of friends to stick together would counter-act any preconceptions they might have picked up about audax being a sport solely for men who like to spend many hours alone.

I doubt that any man would entertain the idea that a mechanical might result in a stranger grabbing him from the side of the road and taking him away to rape and murder him, but that's the kind of message women get from victim-blaming reactions to rape, and the kind of popular culture like CSI and Unforgotten where this stuff happens on the regular. If audax is perceived as an activity where you spend hours alone, completely unsupported, and we want to encourage women to participate who ordinarily wouldn't contemplate it, we need to compensate for that perception.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: De Sisti on 28 May, 2021, 01:33:01 pm

If audax is perceived as an activity where you spend hours alone, completely unsupported, and we want to encourage women to participate who ordinarily wouldn't contemplate it, we need to compensate for that perception.

Sam
Perhaps the use of the phrase "self sufficient", or anything of a similar nature should be discouraged on AUK's website?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 28 May, 2021, 01:44:45 pm
No: I'm trying to politely tell another bloke (that's you, FYI) that he's talking bollocks.
I hope that's still allowed ...

Out of interest, what would you call it when a male poster on a thread about women's participation in cycling ignores all the posts by women countering his assertions with referenced sources, only participating to have a go at one of the other male posters?

I can't decide whether it's trolling or some subset of sexist behaviour or both.

Either way, it's not big and it's not clever, and its nowhere near shocking or edgy enough to give you edgelord status, so how about don't?

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 28 May, 2021, 01:52:50 pm
Perhaps the use of the phrase "self sufficient", or anything of a similar nature should be discouraged on AUK's website?

Is there a reason why a bunch of men here have to immediately jump to AUK having to change? Like, is there a reason why an argument I've actually had posted to me is that AUK would lose revenue for men if all events were women-only?

Did I even say that this should be an AUK event?

Which part of, "give people a taste of the type of event so they build confidence to take part in regular audaxes" is unclear to you?

Self-sufficient sounds scary to people who have been culturally indoctrinated to be afraid of being alone, especially when combined with the kinds of distances that audax people typically discuss.

I'm trying to think of ways to design an event that would encourage women to give it a go so they get over their worry about various aspects of audax that might put them off, and thus they build the confidence to try a normal audax event. Self-sufficient isn't as scary when you already know you can ride that distance, or if you know you can fix a puncture, or if you know that it's fine to ditch and you have options.

Anyone would think you are deliberately looking for ways to mock the concept because you don't want more women to participate. If you don't like the idea, how about not having anything to do with it? No one is forcing you to talk about this.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Philip Whiteman on 28 May, 2021, 01:57:19 pm
A considerable number of good proposals here for women only audaxes but I see little in the way of constructive offers at organising such an event.

So who on this board is going to volunteer?




Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 28 May, 2021, 02:00:43 pm
No: I'm trying to politely tell another bloke (that's you, FYI) that he's talking bollocks.
I hope that's still allowed ...

Out of interest, what would you call it when a male poster on a thread about women's participation in cycling ignores all the posts by women countering his assertions with referenced sources, only participating to have a go at one of the other male posters?

I can't decide whether it's trolling or some subset of sexist behaviour or both.

Either way, it's not big and it's not clever, and its nowhere near shocking or edgy enough to give you edgelord status, so how about don't?

Sam

You've been mattc'd
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: The Family Cyclist on 28 May, 2021, 02:08:58 pm
A considerable number of good proposals here for women only audaxes but I see little in the way of constructive offers at organising such an event.

So who on this board is going to volunteer?

There is a separate thread about this and I have offered to run a control if its local enough
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ajax Bay on 28 May, 2021, 02:11:16 pm
No: I'm trying to politely tell another bloke (that's you, FYI) that he's talking bollocks.
I hope that's still allowed ...
Out of interest, what would you call it when a male poster on a thread about women's participation in cycling ignores all the posts by women countering his assertions with referenced sources, only participating to have a go at one of the other male posters?
I can't decide whether it's trolling or some subset of sexist behaviour or both.
Either way, it's not big and it's not clever, and its nowhere near shocking or edgy enough to give you edgelord status, so how about don't?
Sam
(Just) Out of interest (and with a tad of hesitation, but hey! let's go for it - it's not just any old forum), Sam, do you get aggravated by people seeming to ignore your posts and interacting with other forum members? They are both (probably - they were the last time I rode with them) 'big boys'; let them bicker.
Perhaps it is neither trolling nor a subset of sexist behaviour. Would you similarly be unable to decide if the the two of them self-identified as women?
Do you find that telling little girls that a behaviour you deplore is neither big nor clever? Do you think our two fellow forum members aspire to this 'edgelord' status?
How about just share your excellent views on topic and leave others to err (in your judgement)?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: fboab on 28 May, 2021, 02:20:54 pm
A considerable number of good proposals here for women only audaxes but I see little in the way of constructive offers at organising such an event.

So who on this board is going to volunteer?

I already have:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119266.0

If I can get over my dislike of AUK on Facebook I might share it there.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 28 May, 2021, 02:32:12 pm
I'm trying to think of ways to design an event that would encourage women to give it a go so they get over their worry about various aspects of audax that might put them off, and thus they build the confidence to try a normal audax event. Self-sufficient isn't as scary when you already know you can ride that distance, or if you know you can fix a puncture, or if you know that it's fine to ditch and you have options.
So you want everyone to feel confident they won't be left at the roadside with a mechanical or dropped on the first hill and have to ride the next 99 miles (or 9 miles or whatever) alone. How many people? Do they all know each other beforehand?

The following is in spoilers for probable obviousness:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Philip Whiteman on 28 May, 2021, 02:39:12 pm
A considerable number of good proposals here for women only audaxes but I see little in the way of constructive offers at organising such an event.

So who on this board is going to volunteer?

I already have:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119266.0

If I can get over my dislike of AUK on Facebook I might share it there.

That is brilliant news.  If you don't want the faff of Facebook, ping me the details and I will post a notice on your behalf.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 28 May, 2021, 03:00:52 pm
I'm trying to think of ways to design an event that would encourage women to give it a go so they get over their worry about various aspects of audax that might put them off, and thus they build the confidence to try a normal audax event. Self-sufficient isn't as scary when you already know you can ride that distance, or if you know you can fix a puncture, or if you know that it's fine to ditch and you have options.

The French have found that the original form of audax (UAF) tends to build rider confidence as the distances build up. Several women have used UAF to build confidence with long/ overnight brevets to later ride PBP Randonneur and long perms.

UAF brevets are ridden in groups to a published schedule (22.5km/h on the road + fixed duration rest stops) following a ride captain who controls the group’s speed and is in charge of navigating the route. There are usually a couple of stronger riders near the back of the group who make a point of assisting folk with flat tyres and helping them chase back to the bunch on a descent if the climb was a little too quick.

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109952.0
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: De Sisti on 28 May, 2021, 03:05:39 pm
Perhaps the use of the phrase "self sufficient", or anything of a similar nature should be discouraged on AUK's website?

Is there a reason why a bunch of men here have to immediately jump to AUK having to change? Like, is there a reason why an argument I've actually had posted to me is that AUK would lose revenue for men if all events were women-only?

Did I even say that this should be an AUK event?

Which part of, "give people a taste of the type of event so they build confidence to take part in regular audaxes" is unclear to you?

Self-sufficient sounds scary to people who have been culturally indoctrinated to be afraid of being alone, especially when combined with the kinds of distances that audax people typically discuss.

I'm trying to think of ways to design an event that would encourage women to give it a go so they get over their worry about various aspects of audax that might put them off, and thus they build the confidence to try a normal audax event. Self-sufficient isn't as scary when you already know you can ride that distance, or if you know you can fix a puncture, or if you know that it's fine to ditch and you have options.

Anyone would think you are deliberately looking for ways to mock the concept because you don't want more women to participate. If you don't like the idea, how about not having anything to do with it? No one is forcing you to talk about this.

Sam
Only trying to help FFS! I'll leave it for you to sort it out amongst yourselves.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 28 May, 2021, 03:31:43 pm
So maybe you would have to offer something that isn't quite an audax.

Case in point: The Friday Night Ride to the Cost.  Excellent gender ratio on account of being (at first almost accidentally, but in recent years more deliberately) accessible to women, and known for cultivating long-distance cyclists.

Things like a clear pace, riding with others but not in a peleton, waymarking, guarantee of proper loos, people on hand to help with mechanicals and family-committments-compatible timing.  Then you have the self-perpetuating effect of not wondering whether it will fail the Cycling Bechdel Test[1].

It's notable that FNRttCers have no issues with some of the things that can be a barrier to audaxers moving up to bigger distances, vis riding at night, lighting, weird hours, etc. 


[1] "Are there more women than people called John?"
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 28 May, 2021, 03:40:59 pm
No: I'm trying to politely tell another bloke (that's you, FYI) that he's talking bollocks.
I hope that's still allowed ...
Out of interest, what would you call it when a male poster on a thread about women's participation in cycling ignores all the posts by women countering his assertions with referenced sources, only participating to have a go at one of the other male posters?
I can't decide whether it's trolling or some subset of sexist behaviour or both.
Either way, it's not big and it's not clever, and its nowhere near shocking or edgy enough to give you edgelord status, so how about don't?
Sam
(Just) Out of interest (and with a tad of hesitation, but hey! let's go for it - it's not just any old forum), Sam, do you get aggravated by people seeming to ignore your posts and interacting with other forum members? They are both (probably - they were the last time I rode with them) 'big boys'; let them bicker.
Perhaps it is neither trolling nor a subset of sexist behaviour. Would you similarly be unable to decide if the the two of them self-identified as women?
Do you find that telling little girls that a behaviour you deplore is neither big nor clever? Do you think our two fellow forum members aspire to this 'edgelord' status?
How about just share your excellent views on topic and leave others to err (in your judgement)?

Just so you know, it's mattc and Citoyen involved in the dispute.

I'm an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire.  8)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 28 May, 2021, 04:17:53 pm
So you want everyone to feel confident they won't be left at the roadside with a mechanical or dropped on the first hill and have to ride the next 99 miles (or 9 miles or whatever) alone. How many people? Do they all know each other beforehand?

The following is in spoilers for probable obviousness:
(click to show/hide)

It might be obvious, but I've never organised an audax (as opposed to other long-distance rides where I have been explicit that no one is getting dropped as it's not that kind of ride). Knowing that there is precedent for this is super useful, thank you!

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 28 May, 2021, 04:19:59 pm
Case in point: The Friday Night Ride to the Cost.  Excellent gender ratio on account of being (at first almost accidentally, but in recent years more deliberately) accessible to women, and known for cultivating long-distance cyclists.

I've been meaning to ask what the ratio is on FNRttC. They've all been too far south for me to get on one, despite having been on the circulation list since they started.

Quote
"Are there more women than people called John?"

 ;D ;D ;D

I mean, it's not funny really, but still.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 28 May, 2021, 04:25:34 pm
Only trying to help FFS! I'll leave it for you to sort it out amongst yourselves.

I'm sorry. It is hard to read tone in text, especially when it's a very short statement like that. The suggestion that AUK change what I understand to be an accurate description of regular AUK rides to encourage more women to take part, when they actually would have to be self-sufficient, was easy for me to infer as being meant sarcastically.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 28 May, 2021, 04:47:48 pm
So maybe you would have to offer something that isn't quite an audax.

Case in point: The Friday Night Ride to the Cost.  Excellent gender ratio on account of being (at first almost accidentally, but in recent years more deliberately) accessible to women, and known for cultivating long-distance cyclists.

Things like a clear pace, riding with others but not in a peleton, waymarking, guarantee of proper loos, people on hand to help with mechanicals and family-committments-compatible timing.  Then you have the self-perpetuating effect of not wondering whether it will fail the Cycling Bechdel Test[1].

It's notable that FNRttCers have no issues with some of the things that can be a barrier to audaxers moving up to bigger distances, vis riding at night, lighting, weird hours, etc. 


[1] "Are there more women than people called John?"
Well, dependent on your personal tolerance of sleep deprivation. I've only ridden one FNRttC and one other all-night ride and after both of them I was in state to carry out anything vaguely resembling a family commitment. I've also ridden a couple of 300km audaxes starting at insomniac skylark fart and finishing, for me, about 2a.m. After those (I mean the following day, after getting home and sleeping a few hours) I felt much better, comparatively speaking. Seems my body is happy to ride until late at night but not all through the night. Your body clock might vary, etc, E&OE, circadian rhythms can go down as well as up...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Manotea on 28 May, 2021, 05:58:42 pm
"I'm just an innocent bystander...."

See also 'There are no friendly civilians'

HTH 😎
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 28 May, 2021, 06:23:06 pm
 ;D

Funnily enough, you came up in conversation  with my mate Steve last weekend as we cycled past the car park in Penrhyndeudraeth
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mmmmartin on 29 May, 2021, 11:07:38 am
They've all been too far south for me to get on one
You must indeed be very far north if the fnrttc is too far south. Manchester to Morecambe is fairly North. Not too mention york to hull. And if the Edinburgh to London tour is too far south, you're probably in Iceland.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mmmmartin on 29 May, 2021, 11:21:07 am
I've been meaning to ask what the ratio is
About half the rides being offered currently on the website
https://www.fnrttc.org.uk/
Are led by women.
When i was chief steward i tried to have more women ride leaders but failed utterly. The current leadership has succeeded.
I'd also add, as a fat old man nearer 70 than to 60, that it's not only ladies who want to feel they're not going to be dropped and there is help at hand for mechanicals....
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 29 May, 2021, 11:25:18 am
They've all been too far south for me to get on one
You must indeed be very far north if the fnrttc is too far south. Manchester to Morecambe is fairly North. Not too mention york to hull. And if the Edinburgh to London tour is too far south, you're probably in Iceland.

I think they are all south of Hadrians wall...

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 29 May, 2021, 11:29:21 am
They've all been too far south for me to get on one
You must indeed be very far north if the fnrttc is too far south. Manchester to Morecambe is fairly North. Not too mention york to hull. And if the Edinburgh to London tour is too far south, you're probably in Iceland.

Manchester is 350 miles south of me. It's not north at all.

I'm curious as to why you decided to question my statement. Did you just forget that there's a whole lot of Scotland further north than Edinburgh, or what?

Not the point, however. The point is that these rides appear, at least from Kim's experience, to attract women cyclists in a way that audax doesn't. Could we learn from that?

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 29 May, 2021, 11:37:18 am
Manchester is 350 miles south of me. It's not north at all.

I'm curious as to why you decided to question my statement. Did you just forget that there's a whole lot of Scotland further north than Edinburgh, or what?

Not the point, however. The point is that these rides appear, at least from Kim's experience, to attract women cyclists in a way that audax doesn't. Could we learn from that?

Despite being a total southerner, I try very hard to remember just how bloody huge the UK actually is. By the time you get to "The north" of Manchester, York etc..., there's almost as much UK North of you, as there is South. This seems to be entirely forgotten by everyone in England. It urks me muchly.

Discussing Scottish independence with a couple of Scottish friends, I mentioned that I am all in favour of it, and look forward to the border being established at Hadrians wall.

"You English, you all think that Hadrians wall is the border..."

I interrupted him "No, it was a blatant land grab. I know where the border is. I'd rather it was somewhere south of the Isle of Wight, but was aiming for a more realistic option"

"oh"

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: alfapete on 29 May, 2021, 11:57:11 am
We must have exhausted the 'Women only audaxes' argument so now we're on to How far north is 'north'?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 29 May, 2021, 11:58:24 am
The point is that these rides appear, at least from Kim's experience, to attract women cyclists in a way that audax doesn't. Could we learn from that?

Possibly, but it might entail changing the character of events in a way that might face some resistance from old hands (justifiably or not is up for argument). 

I was wondering about the possibility of ‘chaperones’ - or maybe call them ‘captains’ like they have on proper audaxes. Basically someone who could act as a group leader to offer moral support and advice en route to less experienced riders. Although much is made of the self-sufficiency angle in audax, many people do ride in groups, whether pre-arranged or ad hoc. And even experienced riders find it helpful to have company at times - on overnight sections, for example.

The difficulty in offering this as a feature is, as ever, finding the volunteers to do it...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 29 May, 2021, 12:02:26 pm
HK is up for that sort of thing; she is a captain at most long UAF brevets she rides. She was the first-ever female captain for PBP Audax in 2011.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 29 May, 2021, 12:14:14 pm
Possibly, but it might entail changing the character of events in a way that might face some resistance from old hands (justifiably or not is up for argument). 

As I've said throughout, this isn't a zero-sum game. We're not talking about changing existing audax rides to be something else. They are what they are. We're talking about creating a small number of additional events expressly aimed at encouraging more women to give this particular form of cycling a go. It's overcoming the additional hurdles that women face, so those are no longer obstacles to participation.

Quote
I was wondering about the possibility of ‘chaperones’ - or maybe call them ‘captains’ like they have on proper audaxes. Basically someone who could act as a group leader to offer moral support and advice en route to less experienced riders. Although much is made of the self-sufficiency angle in audax, many people do ride in groups, whether pre-arranged or ad hoc. And even experienced riders find it helpful to have company at times - on overnight sections, for example.

The difficulty in offering this as a feature is, as ever, finding the volunteers to do it...

If I ever manage to get back to full health (I'm working on it), it's something I would be willing to do. I'm sure there are other women here who would also be willing.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: CarlF on 29 May, 2021, 01:05:42 pm
We must have exhausted the 'Women only audaxes' argument so now we're on to How far north is 'north'?

- a woman mentions something that is a problem
- a man explains how it's not really a problem at all
- another man piles in with a dismissive comment

Yeah, none of that is relevant to the topic of what could be done to make the boys' club less off-putting for women

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 29 May, 2021, 02:30:59 pm
(Just) Out of interest (and with a tad of hesitation, but hey! let's go for it - it's not just any old forum), Sam, do you get aggravated by people seeming to ignore your posts and interacting with other forum members? They are both (probably - they were the last time I rode with them) 'big boys'; let them bicker.

I wasn't going to dignify this with a response, but on the off-chance you are seriously interested in why I do this, it being relevant, and not jumping in to a thread on increasing women's participation in audax to have a pop at me for what you consider is me being judgemental (which, you know, pot kettle etc):

See upthread about how bad actors left alone to continue being bad actors affect the nature of the space.

In case you didn't read that, here it is:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119307.msg2627245#msg2627245

Yes, this is a thread not a bar. It's a thread specifically about overcoming women's lack of interest in participating or reluctance to participate in an activity that is dominated by male cyclists. It's a thread started by a man questioning the motivation for running a women-only audax in response to someone organising a women-only event. We have discussed a whole bunch of reasons why women might not want to participate. Having men bickering about the validity of those reasons sours the space and makes it less constructive. If left to get on with it without challenge, it suggests we tacitly accept that this sort of behaviour is fine, and we accept men questioning the validity of our experiences.

We do not.

Failure to respond to genuine discussion in favour of personally attacking another poster suggests a complete lack of interest in the topic. In other words, it's just another example of women trying to have a conversation about the barriers they face to participation being derailed by whiny man babies who can't accept this is not for them and they shouldn't join in if they don't like it.

Bad money drives out good.

It's an important concept, because we know that women experience male behaviour differently. There's a concept called the missing stair (http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html). In a social group, someone's behaviour is off-putting, but everyone just kind of learns to deal with it because otherwise, "He's a good guy, you know? He's just a bit handsy."

Before you pounce, I am not equating sexist behaviour in cycling to sexual assault (although I've had some physical contact experiences in bike shops that I would rather have not). What I'm saying is that there are behaviours that men might not notice, or they do notice but don't think it's that bad, which women find incredibly off-putting, even in some cases to the point of not turning up at all. And it's not just individuals:

Quote
Everyone who says "I don't like it either, but that's the way things are," and makes no move to question the way things are, is jumping over a missing stair somewhere.

I'm old and cranky, and have put up with this bullshit for far too long, so I will happily call out missing stairs, sexist bullshit, and men trying to derail the conversation by homing in on one specific behaviour out of an entire list of unacceptable behaviours and arguing that it doesn't exist. I will do this for the benefit of women reading, who may have thoughts and wish to participate, but don't want to deal with men telling them they are making it up.

Quote from: Ajax Bay
Perhaps it is neither trolling nor a subset of sexist behaviour. Would you similarly be unable to decide if the the two of them self-identified as women?

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that this thread would be derailed by women bickering over whether the issues raised are valid or not.

Quote from: Ajax Bay
Do you find that telling little girls that a behaviour you deplore is neither big nor clever? Do you think our two fellow forum members aspire to this 'edgelord' status?
How about just share your excellent views on topic and leave others to err (in your judgement)?

Do you feel your 'big boy' chums need you to defend them? It's a rhetorical question.

If you, or anyone else reading this thread, find that you don't care enough to comment constructively on ways to encourage women to participate, and women's experiences of sexist bullshit leave you unmoved, but you just have to have a go at individual posters or call into question women's experiences of their lives, maybe think about why that is.

And then don't.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: frankly frankie on 29 May, 2021, 05:25:19 pm
Everything I've read about the FNRttC rides, and every account in the form of a ride report, has made them seem thoroughly excellent and attractive occasions.  They appear to benefit from meticulous levels of organisation and planning which is whole levels beyond what is expected of an Audax organiser, and in-event support is a given.  I've never ridden one but have been tempted once or twice.  A far-north** summer solstice edition would seem like an attractive idea, but I daresay the practicalities of transport back from the finish have already been considered, and rejected.
By contrast, in my extensive (though distant past) experience of riding audaxes I would say that they are characteristically a solitary experience, after the first 30 miles anyway.  It's not really about self-sufficiency, just that, with a relatively small number of riders on a relatively long event, you each get a big chunk of road to yourself.  The concept of audax as a string of convivial cafe stops has never been my experience.

When I saw the Manchester edition (relatively local for me) of FNRttC I showed it to Sheila to see if she would be interested, because I certainly was.  Sheila - with her impeccable audax, PBP, night-riding and self-sufficiency credentials - but still not averse to organising and riding Populaires - was repelled by what she saw in the FNRttC concept.

I've often thought that AUK should look at FNRttC and learn, maybe diversify in that direction (just as I've also thought AUK could look and learn more from Sportives, diversify in that direction too).  The fact that they don't shows that, for all the 'broad church' mantra, audax rides actually occupy a pretty confined space within the whole cycling spectrum.  But then - some people see a 'club' and they just want to be included - missing completely that the main point of a 'club' is to be exclusive.

** north - for the benefit and education of soft southrons - I live within cycle-commuting distance of Manchester and for most practical purposes (eg, weather) I am in 'the Midlands'.  ::-)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 29 May, 2021, 06:50:20 pm
My hypothesis as it stands is as follows:

1. Women are currently under-represented on audax.
2. An unknown fraction of women cyclists currently not participating in audax might like to participate in audax.
3. The additional barriers discussed at length upthread are likely to contribute to the current gender disparity.
4. Designing long distance rides in which at least some of those barriers are not present might attract women who would not otherwise wish to attempt an audax.
5. The women who participate in those rides will gain confidence in their ability to ride long distances and look after themselves on a long distance ride.
6. A proportion of those women might go on to participate in regular "pure" audax rides.

It's a bit of an "if you build it, they will come" thing. I agree that the FNRttC model wouldn't appeal to everyone. The way we did the Dumb Run didn't appeal to everyone. The Dun Run doesn't appeal to everyone. Frankly, the idea of leading a small group of women who are nervous and unsure, only some of whom will enjoy it, doesn't appeal to me as much as going on an adventure with a bunch of folks who are up for it. The thing is, it's a bit like the oft-cited argument for segregated cycle infrastructure -- if you want to get more people willing to do it, you have to appeal to the people who are currently not doing it. What we've been trying to discuss is what kind of things might do that.

The fact a woman who is incredibly experienced doesn't want to do something like FNRttC is neither here nor there. Would that model remove sufficient worry for women who otherwise wouldn't even try going much further than 30km from home the confidence to give something longer a go, thereby demonstrating to themselves that they are capable?

Women are not brought up to have the same confidence as men. Some women develop it anyway. A lot don't, but it often doesn't take much to give them enough confidence to keep going.

A lot of women are not brought up hearing the words, "You can do it."

Also, saying audax is an exclusive club, it doesn't want to diversify, and that's just the way it is, without even trying to do something about it, is at least defeatist. It's in the same vein as saying women don't go into STEM because they're just not suited to it, as opposed to identifying and removing all the barriers that stop girls choosing those subjects at school. We're not arguing women should be included just because. This is not (for the umpteenth time) about changing audax, any more than they had to change maths or physics or chemistry to get more girls interested. It's about how we empower women to believe they can do audax.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 29 May, 2021, 07:11:26 pm
Back when Audax Oz first introduced BPs, I started running a summer evening series of easy 50-100-200km brevets on consecutive Saturday evenings. My part of Oz was too hot to do long rides in summer (early morning or late evening only), so our longest brevets were mid-winter. Starting earlier each week, the 50 would be completed a little before sunset, the 100 a bit after sunset and the 200 midnight or a shade after.

The trick was that entry to any brevet gave you free entry to any following rides in the series e.g. entering the 50 = $30, entering the 100 = $20, entering the 200 = $10. Every year there were newbies who signed up for just the 50 or for the 50 and 100 because the thought of riding in the dark worried them. Quite a few of them enjoyed their brevet so much that they did the next ride in the series. After all, “They had already paid to enter it!”

Most who rode the 50, rode the 100 and found that riding in darkness was fun. Almost everybody who rode the 100 also did the 200, despite some thinking the 200 would be too long or too scary to consider before the series started. It is amazing how a group of female friends will encourage each other into a BP series that most of them had ruled out completing before starting the first ride.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: citoyen on 29 May, 2021, 08:22:03 pm
HK is up for that sort of thing; she is a captain at most long UAF brevets she rides. She was the first-ever female captain for PBP Audax 2011.

 :thumbsup:

Possibly, but it might entail changing the character of events in a way that might face some resistance from old hands (justifiably or not is up for argument). 

As I've said throughout, this isn't a zero-sum game. We're not talking about changing existing audax rides to be something else. They are what they are. We're talking about creating a small number of additional events expressly aimed at encouraging more women to give this particular form of cycling a go. It's overcoming the additional hurdles that women face, so those are no longer obstacles to participation.

Of course. We are indeed talking about putting on new events, and yes, I think most of us here are convinced that these would not be a threat to any existing events. So I'm 100% in agreement with you and entirely supportive of this aim.

Perhaps I was getting carried away with a train of thought about existing events changing in some ways, and that's partly because I'm in the early stages of planning to put my own event on again next year, and thinking about what I might do to encourage greater diversity....

In the long term, I think the organisation as a whole will have to evolve - one-off women-only events are a great idea but not a long-term solution to the problem of lack of diversity and inclusivity. But as long as the calendar still includes a wide range of events from full TLC rides like WCW, to bare-bones events with low entry fees, there's no reason why any existing audaxers need to feel disenfranchised.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 29 May, 2021, 08:50:25 pm
I was running today and it occurred to me that it's common to see women running. In fact today the vast majority of other runners I saw were women, but generally I'd say it looks around 50/50: individually, in pairs and small groups, and also in clubs, women seem to run about as much as men do. It would seem to me that running offers at least as much opportunity for lewd comments and "body shaming" as cycling, so that can't be the reason. Obviously you can't get a mechanical but there's a higher chance of injury and having to hobble home. I once asked a female cyclist (member of a club I used to ride with – still do theoretically but haven't been out with them for ages) and she said "helmet hair" and traffic. I guess that's more a barrier to entry thing that's been overcome for anyone who might be contemplating audax or similar though.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 29 May, 2021, 10:22:02 pm
People are scared of cars, and tend to think that a kerb will protect them.

That explains the popularity of segregated cycle infra.  I can't explain the popularity of running.   :hand:
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 29 May, 2021, 10:27:24 pm
Drivers are relatively nice to runners, they always stop when you're still several feet from the zebra. Of course you're only "holding them up" for a few seconds... Anyways, running is funning! You get to count the goats and then rest on a bench! (yeah, I'm as fast a runner as I am a cyclist)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: MsG on 29 May, 2021, 10:33:45 pm
I've been meaning to ask what the ratio is
About half the rides being offered currently on the website
https://www.fnrttc.org.uk/
Are led by women.
When i was chief steward i tried to have more women ride leaders but failed utterly. The current leadership has succeeded.
I'd also add, as a fat old man nearer 70 than to 60, that it's not only ladies who want to feel they're not going to be dropped and there is help at hand for mechanicals....

As a recent recruit to (a) cycling in general (5 years), (b) audax (2 years) and (c) FnRttC and one of the above mentioned leaders, I have been trying to encourage women to try one of the rides.  Mostly by posting in local groups, also the CUK women's FB group. And to most of the cyclists in general that I meet!
Many women (and men) are astonished at the riding that I do, it's nothing out of the ordinary in terms of audaxing context though.
The recent small ride I led had 4 women and 3 men riders.
I do most of my riding alone and TBH mostly it doesn't bother me. HoweverI don't ride at night on my own (apart from commutes and when split up from the main Friday group). One of my male friends has done longer audaxes in the past and described bivvying behind a bush by a bridge. I've read Emily Chappell and Juliana Buhring, the concept of going longer exploring appeals to me but I can't quite get past the vulnerability of having a kip.
Would a women-only audax encourage me to try longer audaxes? Possibly. I would want to know that it is definitely women only.

When I led my first overnighter last year, setting off to the meet point, it did suddenly occur to me that I was meeting several strange men to spend 12 hours riding with. I did know one of them already but it was an unsettling, passing thought. My partner was unaware of this and separately offered to come down to the meet point but I declined. Would any men worry about this?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 30 May, 2021, 12:52:34 pm
I know a lot of women who run because you get more exercise done per hour of doing it which fits in with many women having less longer-chunks of free time around childcare etc.

To do the longer audaxy distances you do have to have a certain amount of fitness, especially if you don't have the biological benefits of testosterone which. Many women could do a one off 100 or 200 but don't have the free time before hand to do the regular cycling needed to get fit enough to do those things effectively.

Talking of which, our Charlotte who rarely posts here now, seems to be trying Running (with great hatred if her Strava posts are to go by - I've ditched FB so I don't see her hiliariously hating-running posts) due to time constraints. We know Charlotte was a confident audaxer in the past (although she'd almost certainly relate to much of the barriers raised here) but life changes... Priorities change... (And C is into motorbikes at the moment).

I think most men do have more capacity for leisure than most women. The research shows women still do the majority of childcare even when the men think they are doing equal amounts. It may not be overt, but covertly many women don't feel entitled to say to their childrens' father "righty, I'm gonna do all this cycling" and I know in some cases where men have got quite jealous when their female partner gets a hobby that takes time...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Ruthie on 30 May, 2021, 12:53:19 pm
If anyone would like to hire the church building where I worship in Darlington as an Audax venue, the leadership team are more than happy to make it available. It’s £15 an hour to cover heating, lighting and use of the facility. It has the rear of the building turned over to chairs and tables, there’s a single toilet, a kitchen, water boiler, crockery and cutlery though in limited amounts. Someone from the leadership team would need to let you in and lick up when you’re finished.

*probably not Sundays!  ;D (ftp://;D)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 30 May, 2021, 02:58:45 pm
No: I'm trying to politely tell another bloke (that's you, FYI) that he's talking bollocks.
I hope that's still allowed ...
Out of interest, what would you call it when a male poster on a thread about women's participation in cycling ignores all the posts by women countering his assertions with referenced sources, only participating to have a go at one of the other male posters?
I can't decide whether it's trolling or some subset of sexist behaviour or both.
Either way, it's not big and it's not clever, and its nowhere near shocking or edgy enough to give you edgelord status, so how about don't?
I've never heard of this crazy forum etiquette; you're saying that if several posts try to knock me down, I'm obliged to respond to them all? especially if there is a mix of genders, cos otherwise it's sexism? Nope, never heard of forums working like this. (reminds me of the ludicrous fora Paxmans we often see: "Answer the question!!!" "No, this isn't a court of law, sorry".) Equally I have no idea what "edgelord" status is - but I'm guessing it's not very positive?
This is a group discussion, yes? Hence no-one complained (rightly) when you attacked my response to another (male) poster e.g.https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119307.msg2626878;topicseen#msg2626878 There isn't a strict call-response syntax we are all constrained to.
Anyway, I'm taking the time now to properly read your posts, and make some considered replies to them.

[Matt's repy to Flatus:] First you try to associate the behaviour with sexual assault and violence against women.
Then - getting a bit desperate now, perhaps - you put it on a level with racism!
It's similar in the sense that people who deny black people are treated differently because of institutional racism also exist. "They're not racist, they're just twats."
Your argument seems to fall along the same lines, so I can see the similarity. "You're not being subjected to sexism, love, these are what we men call 'rude people.' Don't you worry your silly little head about it, I'm sure they are rude to everyone."
I am very sorry about calling you love, and about the silly little head comment. It is terrible that a male posted it here.
What is even worse is that I don't even remember writing it! Christ what kind of sexist twat I must be! Do feel free to chop my typing fingers off :(

No. They are not. The very definition of "mansplaining" is a man refusing to accept a women has equal or more knowledge than the man doing the explaining. Men don't tend to pull this particularly irritating trick on their fellow men.
So let's get back to the definition game; one thing this thread shows is how important language can be (e.g. when causing offence), so I'm happy to continue this exploration.
I think you and Citoyen are creating a Joseph Heller / Kafka-esque joke on me. Apparently it's forbidden to debate the concept of mansplaining (if you are a man); despite much of sociology being a hotly debated and evolving field. WHY? I ask. Because it's part of the definition!!!
Ha ha ha - very good!

Quote
Sorry, but I'm happy to stick with what I posted. Your ridiculous comparisons leave me unmoved (except for making me smirk, I admit to that.)
So you're just gaslighting now, is that it? Or being a troll, maybe? It's hard to tell the difference sometimes.
Sam
This is an interesting one: my quoted reply was to a male poster. So whom am I gaslighting? And don't you think your reply will fuel the distracting bickering between the men that you said is such bad behaviour?
And will calling me a gaslighting wannabe edgelord help calm down the bickering over one small word which you feel is distracting from the main point of the thread? I can think of better ways you could have achieved that :)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 30 May, 2021, 02:59:58 pm
Just so you know, it's mattc and Citoyen involved in the dispute.
I'm an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire.  8)
Oh rarely? Let's review:
... The fact that you have misread this so badly underlines the likelihood that in your initial post you were doing a #notallmen. You don't realise it because you don't take women's concerns with any seriousness at all, which is at the nub of this entire thread.
Seems like you want to insult me like a big boy, AND be one of the good guys not derailing the thread. I admire your cunning!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Gattopardo on 30 May, 2021, 03:06:38 pm


When I led my first overnighter last year, setting off to the meet point, it did suddenly occur to me that I was meeting several strange men to spend 12 hours riding with. I did know one of them already but it was an unsettling, passing thought. My partner was unaware of this and separately offered to come down to the meet point but I declined. Would any men worry about this?

I would worry/anxious about meeting that number of new people.


Great avatar by the way.
 
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 May, 2021, 03:55:42 pm
I think most men do have more capacity for leisure than most women. The research shows women still do the majority of childcare even when the men think they are doing equal amounts. It may not be overt, but covertly many women don't feel entitled to say to their childrens' father "righty, I'm gonna do all this cycling" and I know in some cases where men have got quite jealous when their female partner gets a hobby that takes time...

Second parent (if applicable) :p

Sorry, a lesbian couple I know has just managed to successfully conceive, which has made me acutely aware of the language around parenting, complicated by the fact of Dutch and English language idiosyncrasies.

I did suggest they use the same terms as my friend with lesbian parents use of "Mum" and "spare mum". I didn't go down well...

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 30 May, 2021, 04:06:59 pm
Just so you know, it's mattc and Citoyen involved in the dispute.
I'm an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire.  8)
Oh rarely? Let's review:
... The fact that you have misread this so badly underlines the likelihood that in your initial post you were doing a #notallmen. You don't realise it because you don't take women's concerns with any seriousness at all, which is at the nub of this entire thread.
Seems like you want to insult me like a big boy, AND be one of the good guys not derailing the thread. I admire your cunning!

Different argument, mattc. You ascribed something to me that was somebody else's objection to you. That's the problem with being an edgelord shitposter, matt. It's hard to keep track of all the objections that come your way. 🤣

To be honest, I don't think you are showing enough commitment to this thread, matt. It's almost as if you aren't really paying attention and not really defending yourself. There was a time when you wouldn't let people walk all over you...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 30 May, 2021, 05:52:50 pm
Silly me - I quoted your actual words. Who knew that you could find a way to misunderstand that?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: rafletcher on 30 May, 2021, 06:24:19 pm
I know a lot of women who run because you get more exercise done per hour of doing it which fits in with many women having less longer-chunks of free time around childcare etc.

To do the longer audaxy distances you do have to have a certain amount of fitness, especially if you don't have the biological benefits of testosterone which. Many women could do a one off 100 or 200 but don't have the free time before hand to do the regular cycling needed to get fit enough to do those things effectively.

Talking of which, our Charlotte who rarely posts here now, seems to be trying Running (with great hatred if her Strava posts are to go by - I've ditched FB so I don't see her hiliariously hating-running posts) due to time constraints. We know Charlotte was a confident audaxer in the past (although she'd almost certainly relate to much of the barriers raised here) but life changes... Priorities change... (And C is into motorbikes at the moment).

I think most men do have more capacity for leisure than most women. The research shows women still do the majority of childcare even when the men think they are doing equal amounts. It may not be overt, but covertly many women don't feel entitled to say to their childrens' father "righty, I'm gonna do all this cycling" and I know in some cases where men have got quite jealous when their female partner gets a hobby that takes time...

I also think (but being a man may be completely off-piste) that as well as being time-efficient, and less weather dependent (due mainly to shorter duration) running is more accessible equipment-wise. A decent pair of shoes, add some general fitness leggings and tops, and off you go. No mysteries around gearing, tyre sizes/types, saddles etc. etc.  And of course its self fulfilling that, as more women run, you’ll find more similar women to run with.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 May, 2021, 06:56:26 pm
I also think (but being a man may be completely off-piste) that as well as being time-efficient, and less weather dependent (due mainly to shorter duration) running is more accessible equipment-wise. A decent pair of shoes, add some general fitness leggings and tops, and off you go. No mysteries around gearing, tyre sizes/types, saddles etc. etc.  And of course its self fulfilling that, as more women run, you’ll find more similar women to run with.

You've never brought a sports bra have you?

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: grams on 30 May, 2021, 07:02:21 pm
People are scared of cars, and tend to think that a kerb will protect them.

That explains the popularity of segregated cycle infra.  I can't explain the popularity of running.   :hand:

Universal segregated running infras on most roads in built up areas and beyond.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: fboab on 30 May, 2021, 07:05:43 pm
I also think (but being a man may be completely off-piste) that as well as being time-efficient, and less weather dependent (due mainly to shorter duration) running is more accessible equipment-wise. A decent pair of shoes, add some general fitness leggings and tops, and off you go. No mysteries around gearing, tyre sizes/types, saddles etc. etc.  And of course its self fulfilling that, as more women run, you’ll find more similar women to run with.

You've never brought a sports bra have you?

J
It's cheaper to buy 6 sports bras that don't fit in the hope that one does, than 6 bicycles.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Jasmine on 30 May, 2021, 07:05:56 pm
I know a lot of women who run because you get more exercise done per hour of doing it which fits in with many women having less longer-chunks of free time around childcare etc.


I also think (but being a man may be completely off-piste) that as well as being time-efficient, and less weather dependent (due mainly to shorter duration) running is more accessible equipment-wise. A decent pair of shoes, add some general fitness leggings and tops, and off you go. No mysteries around gearing, tyre sizes/types, saddles etc. etc.  And of course its self fulfilling that, as more women run, you’ll find more similar women to run with.

As a woman who has largely converted from being a cyclist to a runner, all of these things ring true for me. I don't have kids, but I find myself quite time constrained, so running is indeed more time efficient. It's less shit to run in the pissing rain (plus Welsh wind) than ride a bike. I can do it whilst exercising the dogs. You can't necessarily tell if people you see running are any good. It's totally acceptable to enter running races when you aren't very fast; generally people will be encouraging rather than disparaging. Interestingly, I'm more comfortable riding my bike in the dark than running (in the evening). I don't believe anyone will jump out of the bushes and push me off my bike as I ride past at 15mph*, whilst I do run in places after dark in the winter where the thought pops into my mind. 

Personally, I've found that the running community feels a lot more welcoming to women (and in general to be honest).


* I have had men lean out of a car window to slap me on the arse. More than once.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: MsG on 30 May, 2021, 07:06:02 pm
I also think (but being a man may be completely off-piste) that as well as being time-efficient, and less weather dependent (due mainly to shorter duration) running is more accessible equipment-wise. A decent pair of shoes, add some general fitness leggings and tops, and off you go. No mysteries around gearing, tyre sizes/types, saddles etc. etc.  And of course its self fulfilling that, as more women run, you’ll find more similar women to run with.

You've never brought a sports bra have you?

J

Ha! Another frustrating, expensive experience.
Also chafing is a thing so general fitness leggings not necessarily an easy one either.

Shall we add in 'cheeky' appraisals from men whilst running and just downright abuse. And is it safe to run alone if you're female? 🤔

Anyway I thought this thread was about getting more women in to audax via the possibility of women only events?
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 May, 2021, 07:09:52 pm

]It's cheaper to buy 6 sports bras that don't fit in the hope that one does, than 6 bicycles.

Upto a point. My last sports bra was €108. And while it fit ok in the shop. On a long bike ride doesn't. (Ingot it for Pave).

Once you get over a D, sports bras cease to be clothing they become engineering. When it comes to fitting a 38G rack into an item that will hold them in place when bouncing over cobbles, or running up the road, it is non trivial.

I went to a specialist sports bra seller. They have 98 different designs. 4 went big enough for me.

Sure it's cheaper than a bike, but actually the cost of my sports bra box equals my cheap bike in the basement.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2021, 07:35:23 pm
I also think (but being a man may be completely off-piste) that as well as being time-efficient, and less weather dependent (due mainly to shorter duration) running is more accessible equipment-wise. A decent pair of shoes, add some general fitness leggings and tops, and off you go. No mysteries around gearing, tyre sizes/types, saddles etc. etc.  And of course its self fulfilling that, as more women run, you’ll find more similar women to run with.

You've never brought a sports bra have you?

J
It's cheaper to buy 6 sports bras that don't fit in the hope that one does, than 6 bicycles.

Of course, you have to do both...
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2021, 07:42:47 pm
Shall we add in 'cheeky' appraisals from men whilst running and just downright abuse. And is it safe to run alone if you're female? 🤔

As a lifelong follower of Rule 42 (I can't run because Knee) I'm almost as poorly qualified to judge as all those women who've hardly touched a bike since they were 10, but IME I generally feel safer on a bike than I do on foot.  (And vastly safer than on/waiting for public transport, but we're talking about sporty things, here, not transport.)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Lightning Phil on 30 May, 2021, 08:04:47 pm
One of my male friends has done longer audaxes in the past and described bivvying behind a bush by a bridge. I've read Emily Chappell and Juliana Buhring, the concept of going longer exploring appeals to me but I can't quite get past the vulnerability of having a kip.

There’s nobody hanging around in quiet lanes overnight.   I’d feel vulnerable taking a kip in a town but not out somewhere quiet in the countryside.  On an Irish audax I did get lots of drivers stopping to check I’m ok, when trying to grab a kip during the day.

Back to kipping overnight.  Mostly try and get out of sight when having a kip. Just so you don’t get disturbed.  It is pretty easy to get out of sight and unless you are at side of road on verge you won’t be noticed. In villages, church porches, are usually unlocked, and can often be places to get a kip out of sight (and out of any weather)

Where I’ve not been able to sleep but also need time off the bike with eyes closed. Nearly every time no one comes by apart from fellow audaxers. Other rare times the odd car has passed without stopping.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 30 May, 2021, 09:03:04 pm
Anyway I thought this thread was about getting more women in to audax via the possibility of women only events?

Wellllll, yes and no.
(And welcome into the fray btw! Congrats on your outreach work for the FNRTtC rides - sounds like it's working well. I hope to eventually take part in one when circumstances permit.)




Context and recap for any recent arrivals:

This thread's original original post was a simple notification of a 200km event in France for women, but the first post in response to that required some responding to itself:

I'm not sure what is the exact motivation for this sort of things. Do women feel oppressed/discriminated/segregated during regular ACP or AUK events? My question is really a genuine question.
[...]
My feeling is that women only audax events are on the line of the recent fashion for black only / gay only / women only, etc., events of all kinds. To remain polite, I will just say that this is not my cup of tea.
[...]

We were about half a dozen pages in when the thread got split and the "Women-only audaxes" title was applied to this section of it. At that stage it could equally have been titled:

"Women describe, with examples from firsthand experience, why audaxes can be an unpleasant experience."
"Women explain how unpleasant experiences in audax are a subset of wider systems produced and maintained by cis-het normative patriarchal societies."
"Societal status quo produces barriers to women taking part in audaxes (so we need to act for change outside of audax too.)"
"Some men on audax board perfectly illustrate why audax-related environments might not be seen (by people of all genders) as being very welcoming."
"Classic trolling behaviour on audax board doesn't prompt a moderator response, but the trolls burning their accounts does."
"White women are not the only people less likely to participate in audax events and perhaps we should improve things to make it more appealing/accessible to groups that are more marginalised too."
"Resources to help (current and potential) organisers and participants understand barriers to participation in audax events."

etc, etc

In the lulls between ego-related bun fights we're never-the-less-persisting and making progress on a few fronts:

* A group of men are doing sterling work listening to what's being shared, being reflective on what they have habitually done in the past and thinking about what they can do moving forwards. Thanks chaps.  :thumbsup:

* Women are continuing to share their experiences relating to cycling, audaxing and generally moving about in public space. Thank you too - I appreciate all the time and emotional labour going into this thread.

* We're collectively improving our understanding around ideas of being allies and accomplices and the things we can do when we see sexist/racist/ableist things happening.

* People are sharing examples of events that have successfully broadened participation.

* We're generating a few ideas about what could be done differently in audax as it is now, as well as thinking through the potentials for women-only audaxes. I think we're also starting to identify that the situation could be improved by women-only activities upstream of 200km audaxes.

* Under the original original post, fboab and others are looking to organise inclusive women-only events  in the near future https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119266.msg2625232#msg2625232


Probably there's more, but my eyes are going a bit squiffy and I need to step away from the laptop screen for a bit.

Thanks again to all those who have genuinely put effort into thinking about how we can change things.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mmmmartin on 30 May, 2021, 09:26:46 pm
I have been trying to encourage women to try one of the rides.  Mostly by posting in local groups, also the CUK women's FB group.
The Fridays also pay to advertise on Facebook and often do so aimed specifically at women who are interested in cycling and have friends who are interested in cycling.

When I led my first overnighter last year, setting off to the meet point, it did suddenly occur to me that I was meeting several strange men to spend 12 hours riding with.
Yebbut you knew if anyone was rude or out of order they would really really regret it for a very long time indeed.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Hot Flatus on 30 May, 2021, 09:30:01 pm
Silly me - I quoted your actual words. Who knew that you could find a way to misunderstand that?

Wrong quote, Matt. You need to go back further.

Like I said, no commitment. Shadow of former self.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 31 May, 2021, 11:10:08 am

* We're generating a few ideas about what could be done differently in audax as it is now, as well as thinking through the potentials for women-only audaxes. I think we're also starting to identify that the situation could be improved by women-only activities upstream of 200km audaxes.


Thanks for that sterling effort!

I think this part is maybe where we're coming to the nub of the issue. We've got two things to achieve:

1. Get women who don't currently do audax interested in doing audax.

2. Try not to make audax contain experiences that are specifically unpleasant for women.

Number one is probably where we need to do the upstream women-only or women-targeted things that aren't actually audax but might resemble it in some ways.

I think number two would likely be improved by more women were participating, but that's where men shutting down other men who are indulging in dodgy behaviour becomes more important.

I should note that I read Lightning Phil's comment about kipping not being a problem and my first thought was, "but would that be true if you were a woman?"[1]  I think potential audaxers who do not identify as men need that kind of reassurance from someone who also does not identify as a man, and that's where we'd need advice from women who already participate on how they manage.

Maybe that would help? A women's resource for all things audax that talks about things like risk assessment, risk management, the quotidian details of how to handle being on a bike for long periods by yourself (what do you do if you need to find a hidden spot to pee and there's no one to watch your bike?), what you need to know, written by and for women? I googled women in audax and found a couple of fairly superficial articles about "my first audax" (did it with friends, had a blast), but nothing that goes into detail.

Sam
[1] Would that also be true for someone who was a POC?
P.S. Found the ignore option. This is much better.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: TimC on 31 May, 2021, 11:46:52 am
Sam, my friend Katie Butler has produced several videos about Audaxing and general long-distance riding from a woman's perspective, and that includes technical stuff like where to pee, vegan recipes for on-bike snacks, and all sorts of helpful stuff. She's on YouTube as Katie Kookaburra, and on Instagram as @katiekookaburra1. She started from being an overweight (100kg) total beginner about 6 years ago. She now is very much lighter, and has tried pretty much every type of cycling, and she's a brand ambassador for several cycling products. She's also very approachable if you want to get a face-to-face chat going. Tell her I sent you!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 31 May, 2021, 01:02:43 pm
Sam, my friend Katie Butler has produced several videos about Audaxing and general long-distance riding from a woman's perspective, and that includes technical stuff like where to pee, vegan recipes for on-bike snacks, and all sorts of helpful stuff. She's on YouTube as Katie Kookaburra, and on Instagram as @katiekookaburra1. She started from being an overweight (100kg) total beginner about 6 years ago. She now is very much lighter, and has tried pretty much every type of cycling, and she's a brand ambassador for several cycling products. She's also very approachable if you want to get a face-to-face chat going. Tell her I sent you!

Cool! I was thinking not just video -- video isn't always accessible -- but also just a sort of wiki/reference style thing, but I'll look her up, thanks!

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 31 May, 2021, 04:01:06 pm
One of my male friends has done longer audaxes in the past and described bivvying behind a bush by a bridge. I've read Emily Chappell and Juliana Buhring, the concept of going longer exploring appeals to me but I can't quite get past the vulnerability of having a kip.

There’s nobody hanging around in quiet lanes overnight.   I’d feel vulnerable taking a kip in a town but not out somewhere quiet in the countryside.  On an Irish audax I did get lots of drivers stopping to check I’m ok, when trying to grab a kip during the day.

Back to kipping overnight.  Mostly try and get out of sight when having a kip. Just so you don’t get disturbed.  It is pretty easy to get out of sight and unless you are at side of road on verge you won’t be noticed. In villages, church porches, are usually unlocked, and can often be places to get a kip out of sight (and out of any weather)

Where I’ve not been able to sleep but also need time off the bike with eyes closed. Nearly every time no one comes by apart from fellow audaxers. Other rare times the odd car has passed without stopping.
I'd just add to that; many riders complete 600k+ events without kipping in hedges. And not just the faster riders.

(Helps to pick events with sleep-stops.)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: MsG on 31 May, 2021, 08:45:48 pm
One of my male friends has done longer audaxes in the past and described bivvying behind a bush by a bridge. I've read Emily Chappell and Juliana Buhring, the concept of going longer exploring appeals to me but I can't quite get past the vulnerability of having a kip.

There’s nobody hanging around in quiet lanes overnight.   I’d feel vulnerable taking a kip in a town but not out somewhere quiet in the countryside.  On an Irish audax I did get lots of drivers stopping to check I’m ok, when trying to grab a kip during the day.

Back to kipping overnight.  Mostly try and get out of sight when having a kip. Just so you don’t get disturbed.  It is pretty easy to get out of sight and unless you are at side of road on verge you won’t be noticed. In villages, church porches, are usually unlocked, and can often be places to get a kip out of sight (and out of any weather)

Where I’ve not been able to sleep but also need time off the bike with eyes closed. Nearly every time no one comes by apart from fellow audaxers. Other rare times the odd car has passed without stopping.
I'd just add to that; many riders complete 600k+ events without kipping in hedges. And not just the faster riders.

(Helps to pick events with sleep-stops.)

Yes, I'd read that some events do have sleep-stops and if I were to do longer events then I would be booking somewhere. I was trying to give an example of the different viewpoint or assumptions made from a male point of view about doing a longer audax compared to my concerns about doing it.
For example, I wouldn't want to share a village hall floor with male bodies, as presume that it's find a space somewhere and get some sleep situation?
I'm not sure that men can fully understand quite how vulnerable women feel. I recognise that there are situations in which men feel vulnerable too.
And without wishing to get into any fight about nomenclature, personally, I prefer not to be classified as a 'not identifying as a man' as that (to me) gives the impression that the default is male. The male default is a big issue for much of how life is designed (see this thread as example).
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 31 May, 2021, 10:02:24 pm
I think most men do have more capacity for leisure than most women. The research shows women still do the majority of childcare even when the men think they are doing equal amounts. It may not be overt, but covertly many women don't feel entitled to say to their childrens' father "righty, I'm gonna do all this cycling" and I know in some cases where men have got quite jealous when their female partner gets a hobby that takes time...

Second parent (if applicable) :p

Sorry, a lesbian couple I know has just managed to successfully conceive, which has made me acutely aware of the language around parenting, complicated by the fact of Dutch and English language idiosyncrasies.
<snip>

My use of father was semi-deliberate in as much as the same-gender (or at least queer) couples I know tend to have to work this stuff out from first principles rather than falling too easily into trad gendered roles around childcare/childrearing... I am sure queer couples can get jealousy issues, but I hear of that a LOT less (if ever) compared to how often I hear of cis men being jealous of their female partners having hobbies... It's often quite covert and may have no malice intended, but the jealousy and restricting of activities is often still there.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 01 June, 2021, 12:00:27 am
I'm not sure that men can fully understand quite how vulnerable women feel. I recognise that there are situations in which men feel vulnerable too.
And without wishing to get into any fight about nomenclature, personally, I prefer not to be classified as a 'not identifying as a man' as that (to me) gives the impression that the default is male. The male default is a big issue for much of how life is designed (see this thread as example).

I don't think it's possible for men to understand how vulnerable women feel. They haven't been raised with the message being hammered into them that if a man attacks them then they must have somehow sent the wrong signals, and the consequences will therefore partially be their fault.

For the record, as I used the "not identifying as a man" phrase, I identify as non-binary, and it's a handy shorthand for highlighting my frustration with the current default, which is assumed to be cis-male. Everything from kitchen cupboard height to crash test dummies to the height of sinks to pharmaceutical studies assume the beneficiary will be a man. "Not a man" isn't meant as a classification but as a "this is the 21st century, people, can we not?"

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mattc on 01 June, 2021, 07:23:17 am
One of my male friends has done longer audaxes in the past and described bivvying behind a bush by a bridge. I've read Emily Chappell and Juliana Buhring, the concept of going longer exploring appeals to me but I can't quite get past the vulnerability of having a kip.

There’s nobody hanging around in quiet lanes overnight.   I’d feel vulnerable taking a kip in a town but not out somewhere quiet in the countryside.  On an Irish audax I did get lots of drivers stopping to check I’m ok, when trying to grab a kip during the day.

Back to kipping overnight.  Mostly try and get out of sight when having a kip. Just so you don’t get disturbed.  It is pretty easy to get out of sight and unless you are at side of road on verge you won’t be noticed. In villages, church porches, are usually unlocked, and can often be places to get a kip out of sight (and out of any weather)

Where I’ve not been able to sleep but also need time off the bike with eyes closed. Nearly every time no one comes by apart from fellow audaxers. Other rare times the odd car has passed without stopping.
I'd just add to that; many riders complete 600k+ events without kipping in hedges. And not just the faster riders.

(Helps to pick events with sleep-stops.)

Yes, I'd read that some events do have sleep-stops and if I were to do longer events then I would be booking somewhere. I was trying to give an example of the different viewpoint or assumptions made from a male point of view about doing a longer audax compared to my concerns about doing it.
For example, I wouldn't want to share a village hall floor with male bodies, as presume that it's find a space somewhere and get some sleep situation?
I'm not sure that men can fully understand quite how vulnerable women feel. I recognise that there are situations in which men feel vulnerable too.
And without wishing to get into any fight about nomenclature, personally, I prefer not to be classified as a 'not identifying as a man' as that (to me) gives the impression that the default is male. The male default is a big issue for much of how life is designed (see this thread as example).
I was absolutely not denying the problem (or denying that the female viewpoint would be different).
I was trying to show some upside to the reality, possibly mitigating some concerns.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 01 June, 2021, 09:10:49 am
"Not a man" isn't meant as a classification but as a "this is the 21st century, people, can we not?"


Words are important.

FWIW - and as food for thought for potential organisers - in the work I do I'm currently using framings like "transgender people, non-binary people and allied women" at the headline level to flag deliberate intentions of inclusivity of marginalised genders but not transphobia. Then, as I am aware this is an incomplete list, tending towards "those who are not cis gender men" framings in the main text.

There is also a code of conduct that additionally sets out that racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced behaviours are not acceptable. This looks a bit officious, but it gives me something concrete to point at should unacceptable behaviour arise and I can boot the perpetrators out without having to enter into a debate.

With reference to an earlier post, I'm only interested in hosting the good money.


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 June, 2021, 09:42:05 am
Everything from kitchen cupboard height to crash test dummies to the height of sinks to pharmaceutical studies assume the beneficiary will be a man.
Not just any man but a handsome British policeman, apparently.
Quote
When Le Corbusier developed his proportional system Le Modulor in the 1940s, the great architect had in mind a handsome British policeman. His system would go on to shape the entire postwar world, dictating everything from the height of a door handle to the scale of a staircase, all governed by the need to make everything as convenient as possible for this 6ft-tall ideal man. Its influence even extended to the size of city blocks, since these responded to the size and needs of the car our imaginary hero drove to work. The Swiss-born, Paris-based architect had originally proposed 1.75m, based on the average height of a Frenchman, but it later grew. “In English detective novels,” said Le Corbusier, explaining his change of mind, “the good-looking men, such as policemen, are always 6ft tall!”
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/may/19/why-are-our-cities-built-for-6ft-tall-men-the-female-architects-who-fought-back
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 01 June, 2021, 10:33:55 am
Words are important.

Yes, you are right. I am sorry. I should have been positively inclusive rather than lazily exclusive.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Kim on 01 June, 2021, 12:08:29 pm
"Not a man" isn't meant as a classification but as a "this is the 21st century, people, can we not?"


Words are important.

FWIW - and as food for thought for potential organisers - in the work I do I'm currently using framings like "transgender people, non-binary people and allied women" at the headline level to flag deliberate intentions of inclusivity of marginalised genders but not transphobia. Then, as I am aware this is an incomplete list, tending towards "those who are not cis gender men" framings in the main text.

And to spell it out: This avoids the perennial problem with "women and non-binary people", where you can never be sure whether the writer actually groks non-binary, or just reflexively adds it as a kind of 'women lite'.  Non-binary people (or for that matter, women) who are read as male may read that and not feel welcome, or worse, risk being actively excluded.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: nikki on 01 June, 2021, 02:42:10 pm
There was a point when I had a flurry of people signing up for stuff and introducing themselves in emails as trans or non-binary. This was hopefully a positive indication that I'd set a welcoming tone, but I also feel strongly that people shouldn't have to declare to me what's in their pants, so I reworded copy to be more explicit about trusting people to know what's right for them. Something along the lines of saying we recognise things aren't always simple, and that people are welcome to get in touch if they're not sure it'd be the right place for them. I indicate that as part of the sign up process they'll be asked to confirm eligibility and to let us know what pronouns to use, but that they won't have to share any other information about their gender unless they want to.

I expect to keep adjusting wording as my learning develops and as the project builds up more of a community of people with opinions about how they are represented and included.

Sure there'll be specific situations where it makes sense to limit participation to cis gender women, but I think we can generally do better than "women-only" either as a label or as a policy if we're genuinely wanting to dismantle systems of exclusion.

Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 01 June, 2021, 05:02:39 pm
I don't think it's possible for men to understand how vulnerable women feel. They haven't been raised with the message being hammered into them that if a man attacks them then they must have somehow sent the wrong signals, and the consequences will therefore partially be their fault.

For the record, as I used the "not identifying as a man" phrase, I identify as non-binary, and it's a handy shorthand for highlighting my frustration with the current default, which is assumed to be cis-male. Everything from kitchen cupboard height to crash test dummies to the height of sinks to pharmaceutical studies assume the beneficiary will be a man. "Not a man" isn't meant as a classification but as a "this is the 21st century, people, can we not?"

I cannot emphasise enough how the modern western world is just NOT built for women.

Sam mentions seat belts. Of the team at Volvo that developed the 3 point safety belt, not one of them was a woman, This is why women are disproportionally injured in car accidents, with pregnant women even more so.

When apple brought out a comprehensive health monitoring app, it could monitor all sorts of things like your copper levels, but it couldn't monitor a menstral cycle. Women are 51% of the global population.

This goes on and on. There's been a PPE crisis the last year because of a certain plague, but the reality is for many women there's been PPE issues for decades. PPE is made for men, or for a male-centric unisex model. In some settings this is just the annoyance of badly fitted gloves, but in some industries it can be fatal (think arborists, fishing industry, chemical industry etc...).

There is so much of this shit going on that there's a book been written about it. https://amzn.to/2Kpf2Qy I've plugged this book elsewhere in the thread, but I think every single person on this forum should read it. The men so they can learn, the women to give a boost to the rage that drives us forward in the quest to burn down the patriarchy... *cough* *ahem* quiet part out loud again...

To bring this back to cycling. The number of areas where "unisex" just means "slightly smaller men's item", or the women's design is just a case of shrink it and pink it, rather than actually thought out designed with women in mind. I really struggle to find jerseys that fit. I'm a big fat dyke, I'm ok with that, I've come to terms with my body. But I'd like to be able to go into a bike shop and buy a jersey that is actually designed for tits. Other than the women's specific brand for which I am a brand ambassador, the jersey's I've bought from a certain big clothing brand have had to be mens, cos crazily enough, they are the only ones that go big enough to fit boobs. My boobs aren't that big, 38G (or H, depending on who measures). I hate that I cross dress when I ride a bike.

This become especially pertinent to long distance cycling because in order to ride a bike for 10+ hours, you need to be comfortable, that means a bike that fits, and clothing that is designed for your body shape.

And while I'm ranting, something I would like boyfriends who cycle and want their partners to cycle to do is this: STOP BUYING SHIT BIKES. The number of times I have come across women who have been put off cycling after their boyfriend got them a bike to see if they were interested. They got them a cheap sora BSO, which is invariably uncomfortable and not fun to ride. If you want to get a friend or partner into cycling, just rent them a quality bike. It'll be more cost effective in the long run.

Now all of you, go read Invisible Women if you haven't already.

J

Disclaimer: CCP, the author of Invisible Women is a TERF, and doesn't seem to do anything to hide this fact. So while I hate her TERFness, the book stands alone as a work of feminism is one of the few books out there on just how badly designed the world around us is.


Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: fimm on 01 June, 2021, 05:57:36 pm

For example, I wouldn't want to share a village hall floor with male bodies, as presume that it's find a space somewhere and get some sleep situation?


When I did the Snow Roads audax I was one of three women and about 70 men. I was the only woman who took up the option of sleeping in the village hall. The organiser got in touch and told me I would be the only woman and did I want to change my mind? No, I said, that's fine, but thank you for the consideration.

I'm now going to go back to just reading this thread. As far as my experiences are concerned I might as well be a man.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: arabella on 01 June, 2021, 06:16:31 pm
Yes, I'd read that some events do have sleep-stops and if I were to do longer events then I would be booking somewhere. I was trying to give an example of the different viewpoint or assumptions made from a male point of view about doing a longer audax compared to my concerns about doing it.
For example, I wouldn't want to share a village hall floor with male bodies, as presume that it's find a space somewhere and get some sleep situation?
I'm not sure that men can fully understand quite how vulnerable women feel. I recognise that there are situations in which men feel vulnerable too.
And without wishing to get into any fight about nomenclature, personally, I prefer not to be classified as a 'not identifying as a man' as that (to me) gives the impression that the default is male. The male default is a big issue for much of how life is designed (see this thread as example).

There's pre- and post-event accommodation and during-event accommodation.
Sample size of one but: during event I'm usually too tired to care, with 300+ km in my legs, so long as I can (ideally) avoid the snorers or other keepy-awakey options.  But then I have, to paraphrase Kim, acquired a middle-aged invisibility (so, to be accurate, have most other audaxers of any gender, unless the average age has dropt considerably since I last looked).
Pre-event I do appreciate it when the org has thought about separated accommodation that isn't a shared corridor to somewhere that gets nabbed by "everybody" - which thus removes the benefit of the [women] only space.  Makes it easier to change etc..  Mixed changing rooms aren't my thing. 
Post-event ditto, mitigated by tiredness (see during event)

And oh yes, androcentrism and the default male.  I've tried not to depress myself too much by looking too hard at this.  Thomas the Tank Engine - all the engines are apparently male.  Or cuddly toys (except dolls).  The minions.  House of Lords.  Museum of Mankind.  BA/BSc (B=bachelor) followed by MA/MSc (M=master). (fire)/post/bin/milk/...-men. 
(I have read invisible women (https://www.hive.co.uk/Search/Keyword?keyword=Invisible%20Women&productType=0),  I'm sure there's another book on the same subject, more recent, but I forget the author/title).  Unless it was the medicine specific version (https://www.hive.co.uk/Search/Keyword?keyword=Sex%20Matters%3A%20How%20male-centric%20medicine%20endangers%20women%27s%20health%20and%20what%20we%20can%20do%20about%20it&productType=0)
[non amazon links, I've been boycotting amazon, not that they appear to have noticed]
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 02 June, 2021, 12:31:24 pm
Not audax, but at least two cycling organisations
Quote
https://twitter.com/muc_off/status/1400030058471903233

Becca Burns is well fit!

Becca has been out on her bike throughout the pandemic to keep fit and well - something we definitely recommend!

"I have never appreciated my bike more" - ain't that the truth Love-you gesture

@wearecyclinguk

#MucOff #BikeWeek2021 #7DaysOfCycling

Basically Muc Off are blaming Cycling UK (I don't much care who, they both suck).

I mean, ffs, the stupid!
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 02 June, 2021, 12:39:04 pm
It got taken down before I could have a go at them.

San
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 02 June, 2021, 12:44:40 pm
It got taken down before I could have a go at them.

San

I got a screen shot, I'll post in a bit.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 02 June, 2021, 12:48:17 pm
It's not just Grace and me is it?

I am struggling to think of a context in which the phrase "well fit" is not almost always used by men about women in a leering sense...

I'm Not Offended. I'm Furious!

(I am glad they deleted it tho, I just don't think they will reflect, nor will cycling uk)
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 02 June, 2021, 01:11:12 pm
I think this incident (which I haven't seen, except reported on here) was probably a pun that backfired and was used for the sake of the pun.  That's still inadmissible, of course and Cycling UK has a history of less-than-successful puns in its publications.  But I can say that, while your general doubt may be right, Barakta, (there is no way either of us can actually know how frequently it's used by leering men as opposed to leering women, though I dare say men might be more likely to preen than women, who might understandably feel threatened or insulted), it does happen the other way round.  The office I "report" to in my work is staffed by 4 women - and they all do it.  In my case they usually add "for an old bloke" but it can definitely get wearing.  I've had to resort to becoming a lot younger to avoid this.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: quixoticgeek on 02 June, 2021, 01:20:50 pm
It's not just Grace and me is it?

it's not, see my tweets on the subject...

Quote

I am struggling to think of a context in which the phrase "well fit" is not almost always used by men about women in a leering sense...

I'm Not Offended. I'm Furious!

(I am glad they deleted it tho, I just don't think they will reflect, nor will cycling uk)

The day I am having, I am powered by incandescent rage and anger.

J
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 02 June, 2021, 01:27:06 pm
And oh yes, androcentrism and the default male.  I've tried not to depress myself too much by looking too hard at this.  Thomas the Tank Engine - all the engines are apparently male.  Or cuddly toys (except dolls).  The minions.  House of Lords.  Museum of Mankind.  BA/BSc (B=bachelor) followed by MA/MSc (M=master). (fire)/post/bin/milk/...-men. 
(I have read invisible women (https://www.hive.co.uk/Search/Keyword?keyword=Invisible%20Women&productType=0),  I'm sure there's another book on the same subject, more recent, but I forget the author/title).  Unless it was the medicine specific version (https://www.hive.co.uk/Search/Keyword?keyword=Sex%20Matters%3A%20How%20male-centric%20medicine%20endangers%20women%27s%20health%20and%20what%20we%20can%20do%20about%20it&productType=0)
[non amazon links, I've been boycotting amazon, not that they appear to have noticed]

There is an unpleasant reverse effect for some professions. Nursing, for example. Seen as a profession for 'women'.
A few consequences of that, one being that pay is kept low.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 02 June, 2021, 01:27:57 pm
I think this incident (which I haven't seen, except reported on here) was probably a pun that backfired and was used for the sake of the pun.  That's still inadmissible, of course and Cycling UK has a history of less-than-successful puns in its publications.  But I can say that, while your general doubt may be right, Barakta, (there is no way either of us can actually know how frequently it's used by leering men as opposed to leering women, though I dare say men might be more likely to preen than women, who might understandably feel threatened or insulted), it does happen the other way round.  The office I "report" to in my work is staffed by 4 women - and they all do it.  In my case they usually add "for an old bloke" but it can definitely get wearing.  I've had to resort to becoming a lot younger to avoid this.

I just want to point out something that might not be obvious.

When a woman does things like this to a man, there is effectively zero possibility of that woman following up leering comments with physical violence.

When a man does things like this to a woman, there is a distinct chance that failure to de-escalate the situation will result in physical assault or worse. Not every man, but any man not known to be safe.

For a man, these comments are wearing. For a woman, they are potentially frightening. It's not a case of, "Oh, give it a rest, will you?" It's a case of, "Is this one of the ones who will follow this up with harassment, grabbing, following, cornering, trapping, assault? Is this one of the men who think an objectifying statement is a compliment, and offering a compliment is entitling them to something, and they will react badly if I refuse?"

Not every situation. Obviously, someone saying this at work is not going to follow this up by pinning you against the desk in your open-plan cube farm. But in the photocopier cubby at the Christmas party? Maybe. Following you when you leave work on a dark winter's evening and finding out where you live? Perhaps.

Do women over-estimate the likelihood of this happening? Possibly. But think of it as a risk assessment. Where the likelihood is low but the consequences are severe, that's still a strong risk that needs mitigation.

Comments like this aren't always about what might happen next in that specific circumstance, but about how they remind you of every other circumstance where it is potentially a threat, and how exhausting it is to have to think about it.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 02 June, 2021, 01:35:50 pm
It's obvious enough.  I'm surprised you felt the need to point it out to me - or am I not allowed to comment?  I was certainly not being either misunderstanding or dismissive.  I don't do this behaviour, the women in the office do.  But that doesn't mean I think all women do or that all men don't.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: barakta on 02 June, 2021, 01:56:18 pm
I think Peter your comment came across as what I call "what about the menz" or 'whataboutery'.

I can't remember the citation but a woman who worked in domestic violence posted regularly on social media about both women and men being recipients of the violence and did research on all genders.
When she posted about male recipients, no one ever said "what about female victims?".
When she posted about female recipients, she was flooded with "what about male victims?".

She even counted up the data on this and wrote a paper on it.

So while in that instance men are say 15% of victims and women are 85% of victims, men still demand attention more than 15% or a small amount of the time when women are talked about, women (and men) do not do this when men are talked about.
(Gross generalisation of binary genders for simplification - in practice it's more complex than that if you add LGBT and marginalised genders and and and factors to domestic violence).

I absolutely agree that women, especially in officey environments sometimes use "well fit" about a male colleague and do that whole Diet Coke advert leering at 'fit men' stuff. It's yucky and I hate it. But as Sam has kinda explained, it may be unpleasant, but doesn't come with the same societal marginalisation and fear that women routinely experience. It isn't OK, and I would absolutely challenge it and have in the past supported a male colleague who was subjected to an 'arse slap' by a female boss (I offered to be a witness in a complaint, but respected colleague's probably wise decision not to escalate matters cos he knew he wouldn't be believed, he wasn't scared, mostly angry, boss was a vicious cowbag and she'd have ruined him). I avoid those discussions and let women know I think they're gross and indeed explain why.

But as a reply from a man to today's sexist cycling theme that I raised, your reply was taking attention away from women and back to men and yourself, rather than focusing on us highlighting Yet Another #EverydaySexism...

Men don't have to reply with a counterpoint of when women suck too every time women raise a thing... Look at the bigger picture. Learn to read the room.
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 02 June, 2021, 02:08:24 pm
Sam and Barakta - fair enough.  I was in two minds about posting, which should have told me not to!  I thought perhaps saying that I thought the practice was inadmissible would make it clear where I stand on this but it was obviously not enough.  I was also trying to amuse, where the subject is obviously too raw for that.  The people in my office are lovely (including me) but I recognise that part of that is down to my not feeling threatened by them, or at least not letting them see that I am!

Peter
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: ravenbait on 02 June, 2021, 02:10:19 pm
It's obvious enough.  I'm surprised you felt the need to point it out to me - or am I not allowed to comment?  I was certainly not being either misunderstanding or dismissive.  I don't do this behaviour, the women in the office do.  But that doesn't mean I think all women do or that all men don't.

I'm not sure where I gave the impression you weren't allowed to comment, or that I was attacking you personally, especially as I quoted you saying women might feel threatened.

There have been other posters on this thread who have been dismissive, and some men like to jump on observations such as yours to minimise the impact of men objectivising and passing comment on women by saying, "women do this too." They do, and they shouldn't, and I wouldn't accept it in my working environment.

But I was attempting to elucidate, for any men who might read this and not understand what the big deal is or why women might feel threatened, why "She's well fit!" is anger-inducing rather than just a shoddy pun to be dismissed as dodgy advertising. The impact on men of women doing this to men is different from the impact on women of men doing this to women.

It was an elaboration of one of the points you made, not me having a go at you.

Sam
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: Peter on 02 June, 2021, 02:23:20 pm
That's all fine, Sam.

I only referred to the pun and Cycling UK the way I did because I've actually had correspondence with Cycling UK in the past about bad puns - though, truth to tell, not offensive ones!

All the best

Peter
Title: Re: Women-only audaxes
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 02 June, 2021, 02:57:43 pm
I've been on the receiving end of persistent 'grab ass'.

I had to tell the person that, while I wasn't offended, if I did that to someone, I would be (rightfully) sacked.

The person groping me was a man.

I've heard horrible stories from my daughters and my wife about similar instances.

The significant difference was that, for me, if I really objected, I could follow that up with physically defending myself (it was one individual).

For my daughters and wife; not only couldn't they have physically fended off a man, it was often a group.

I have known two men who were raped. By groups of men.

There is a common theme here, and it is gender.

I've been on the receiving end of lewd or suggestive comments from women (drunk and sober). But that is all; comments. And when I rebuffed the advances? Either laughter, or embarrassed retreat (by all parties).

Men?
When my step-daughter refused to get in a car with some men, they screamed insults at her and tried to drag her into the car.

Three times I've had to intervene when a woman has been fleeing violence, or been at the receiving end of violence.

The common reaction of some (significant proportion) men, when rebuffed (sexually or socially), is to get physical. Men do it to men. And they do it women.