Women-only audaxes

[Kim]

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?"}

[Hot Flatus]

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. 

[ravenbait]

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)

You could do something similar to what WillpomGWRaudax otp did on an event he organized recently: provide an excellent route description in words, gpx and traditional route sheet, (he always does this) and ask people to estimate their finishing time. Then put people into groups of six matched by self-estimated speed and sent each group off at a small interval telling each group to stick together. This was for covid reasons. It was a "proper audax" under AUK rules but altered for special circumstances but I think due to limited numbers it was almost entirely local people who knew each other anyway.

I'm told by someone who rode the event (I didn't) that in practice the groups didn't stick together (but it did work in reducing mingling) but as these were "seasoned audaxers" and your riders wouldn't be, I reckon they'd probably have more motivation to stick together. And it's easier to keep a small group together without dropping anyone than make sure no one gets dropped from a big bunch. Groups could meet and if necessary swap members according to speed on the day at cake stops.

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

[ravenbait]

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.

"Are there more women than people called John?"

 

I mean, it's not funny really, but still.

Sam

[ravenbait]

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

[Cudzoziemiec]

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...

[Manotea]

"I'm just an innocent bystander...."

See also 'There are no friendly civilians'

HTH 😎

[Hot Flatus]

 

Funnily enough, you came up in conversation  with my mate Steve last weekend as we cycled past the car park in Penrhyndeudraeth

[mmmmartin]

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.

[mmmmartin]

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....

[quixoticgeek]

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

[ravenbait]

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

[quixoticgeek]

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

[alfapete]

We must have exhausted the 'Women only audaxes' argument so now we're on to How far north is 'north'?

[citoyen]

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...

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[ravenbait]

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.

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

[CarlF]

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

[ravenbait]

(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. 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:

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.

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.

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

[frankly frankie]

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'. 

[ravenbait]

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

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[citoyen]

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.

 

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

[Kim]

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.