Women-only audaxes

[ravenbait]

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

[mattc]

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.)

[MsG]

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).

[barakta]

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.

[ravenbait]

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

[mattc]

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.

[nikki]

"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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

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

[ravenbait]

Words are important.

Yes, you are right. I am sorry. I should have been positively inclusive rather than lazily exclusive.

Sam

[Kim]

"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.

[nikki]

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.

[quixoticgeek]

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.

[fimm]

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.

[arabella]

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,  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
[non amazon links, I've been boycotting amazon, not that they appear to have noticed]

[barakta]

Not audax, but at least two cycling organisations

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!

[ravenbait]

It got taken down before I could have a go at them.

San

[quixoticgeek]

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

[barakta]

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)

[Peter]

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.

[quixoticgeek]

It's not just Grace and me is it?

it's not, see my tweets on the subject...

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

[mrcharly-YHT]

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,  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
[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.

[ravenbait]

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

[Peter]

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.

[barakta]

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.

[Peter]

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