Women-only audaxes

[ravenbait]

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

[ravenbait]

.

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

[Davef]

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.

[Davef]

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.

[grams]

The whole awkward situation can be avoided by not inviting any men along. Perhaps someone should try that?

[frankly frankie]

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.

[frankly frankie]

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.

[TimC]

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.

[nikki]

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.

[BrianI]

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!

[Ben T]

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.

[ChillyPanda]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[arabella]

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

or there's this cartoon which ime is still relevant today and some words around 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?

[ChillyPanda]

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.

[ravenbait]

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.

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

[ravenbait]

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

[Jaded]

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?

[citoyen]

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" 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.

[nikki]

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.)

[BrianI]

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?

[ravenbait]

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

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

[sojournermike]

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

[ravenbait]

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