Lady Victoria on sexism in cycling

NervexProf

Interesting read here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... mpics.html

Is she right?

Would love to see her in more events than just the sprint.

mrushton

How about less events for 'black people'? I think there would be some issues if that was the case so why should there be less opportunities for women, especially at the Olympics which is supposed to be about equality etc?

aurelio_-_banned

A much better interview with Pendleton here...

...what other sport has to deal with the attitude we get as cyclists on the road? I certainly haven't noticed any sudden courtesy to cyclists in the wake of us being the most successful British team in the Olympics. I cycle to the velodrome most days and I have one narrow escape for every hour on the road. I just think, 'Holy shit, I could die on my bike out here.'

"To a cyclist, these bloody motorists might as well be running around with a loaded gun. When you have that sort of attitude towards cyclists how are we going to move our sport into the mainstream?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/oc ... on-cycling

Blonde

aurelio wrote:

A much better interview with Pendleton here...

...what other sport has to deal with the attitude we get as cyclists on the road? I certainly haven't noticed any sudden courtesy to cyclists in the wake of us being the most successful British team in the Olympics. I cycle to the velodrome most days and I have one narrow escape for every hour on the road. I just think, 'Holy shit, I could die on my bike out here.'

"To a cyclist, these bloody motorists might as well be running around with a loaded gun. When you have that sort of attitude towards cyclists how are we going to move our sport into the mainstream?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/oc ... on-cycling

Yes, she also mentions in that same Guardian article that she is currently denied the opportunity to win three gold medals, like Chris Hoy, as there are so few track events for women compared to men, which is of course ridiculous. We're only half (well actually, a bit more than half) of the population. I'm currently training for track accreditation and will be trying the derny paced training sessions once I've passed. I wonder how many other women will be doing those? At the moment there is no derny paced event for women at all. I know that Chris Hoy had 'his event' (500m) removed from the list so had to train for the longer distance of the kilometre at the last olympics, but that wasn't because he is male, or because he is Scottish, but he still gets more events to choose from because he is male. The lack of olympic track events for women is just traditional old sexism, alive and well in the 21st century. I was brought up to think I was just the same as everyone else i terms of equality so had never even considered the possibility that I might not be treated the same due to my sex, so I still feel deep shock when I see or experience sexism. Perhaps I had a sheltered childhood!

aurelio_-_banned

Blonde wrote:

I'm currently training for track accreditation and will be trying the derny paced training sessions once I've passed. I wonder how many other women will be doing those?

...The lack of olympic track events for women is just traditional old sexism, alive and well in the 21st century.

Could it not be that these two things are linked? Perhaps if more women took part as you are doing the racing would follow naturally in order to cater for them. After all, as the example of Ms. Pendleton and yourself shows, no one is actually stopping women from getting on the track!

aurelio_-_banned

Blonde wrote:

I was brought up to think I was just the same as everyone else i terms of equality...

I found this wasn`t the case the first time I rode a bike race and got my backside kicked!

Personally I think it would be a good idea to have world titles for donkeys such as myself who are physically disadvantaged not just because of our gender but because of a total lack of talent. After all us talentless individuals must make up 99.9% of the population!

Blonde

Yes they are putting off women from getting on the track - most people training for accreditation want to race. That is why they are there. I may be unusual in that I just want to experience the track and have somewhere to go for excercise when the roads are icy in winter. No one who is serious about track racing will train for an event that they can't take part in.

Fewer men do horse riding compared to women, so therefore it would be OK to exclude them from, for instance, the dressage event or from several of the other equestrian disciplines? Of course not.

Kléber

Women can race of course but it's wrong for the UCI and the IOC to offer medals in sports to men that are denied to women.

But then nothing surprises me when I remind myself that the sport is run by McQuaid-Verbruggen.

aurelio_-_banned

Blonde wrote:

Yes they are putting off women from getting on the track - most people training for accreditation want to race. That is why they are there. I may be unusual in that I just want to experience the track and have somewhere to go for excercise when the roads are icy in winter. No one who is serious about track racing will train for an event that they can't take part in.

I am a little confused here. Are you saying that women are being put off from getting on the track because most people who do get on the track want to race but women don`t want to race? If so surely the same applies to all those men who might like to get fit by riding on the track but don`t want to race?

In any case I don`t think what you are saying is really true. How about all those club days on the track where anyone member can take part without having to get accreditation?

As long-standing Manchester accredited rider ( 12 years) I would also not feel that happy about non-accredited riders being allowed on to the track as part of an open session. It can be dodgy enough as it is!

Blonde

aurelio wrote:

Blonde wrote:

Yes they are putting off women from getting on the track - most people training for accreditation want to race. That is why they are there. I may be unusual in that I just want to experience the track and have somewhere to go for excercise when the roads are icy in winter. No one who is serious about track racing will train for an event that they can't take part in.

I am a little confused here. Are you saying that women are being put off from getting on the track because most people who do get on the track want to race but women don`t want to race? If so surely the same applies to all those men who might like to get fit by riding on the track but don`t want to race?

In any case I don`t think what you are saying is really true. How about all those club days on the track where anyone member can take part without having to get accreditation?

As long-standing Manchester accredited rider ( 12 years) I would also not feel that happy about non-accredited riders being allowed on to the track as part of an open session. It can be dodgy enough as it is!

No. I'm saying that by not having events open to all, the implicit message is that track cycling is not for all. The opposite is true. Of course women want to race. If I went to a swimming club and was told that women only do breastroke and not the other strokes what would happen if breaststroke was not the stroke I was most suited to, or excelled in? What if Vickie Pendleton was actually really suited to and interested in doing the derny paced event? She would be denied the opportunity to excel in the sport she was good at and interested in so might not bother training in something else. Young athletes need to be encouraged and excluding women from certain events is not encouraging. It could damage the sport. We want the GB women to excel and they could have won as many as the men if the opportunity to win them was there.

P.S. Not sure what track accreditation has to do with this issue. I can't see any link so you may have to explain!

aurelio_-_banned

Kléber wrote:

Women can race of course but it's wrong for the UCI and the IOC to offer medals in sports to men that are denied to women.

Perhaps part of the problem is that given the way the IOC works for each new women's event which was introduced a men`s event would have to be culled? After all, as Blonde (interesting in these post-feminist days to see a lady using a pseudonym based on her hair colour... ) many fewer women currently want to compete than men and no one really want`s to see a situation where medals are handed out for doing little more than turning up, as happens with the `First lady` prize in many events in the UK.

There does need to be much more parity in men`s and women`s events though in that the distances should be the same, at least on the track. The old 500m women's TT was a bit of a farce, given that riding 500m is a whole different proposition to riding a full km.

Blonde

Heh! I use the name Blonde because I have blonde hair. I assume those using 'bigfattallguy' or whatever are also blessed with the named characteristic! I could have used mediumbuildtallishwoman but it's a bit too long. Can't see the link with feminism or post feminism though! I think if women want to ride the currently non-existent events, eventually the powers that be will have to listen - but it's hard to see how any cyclist will know they want to do those events that don't exist if they don't train for them because there is no point.... it'll be another long haul.

aurelio_-_banned

Blonde wrote:

No. I'm saying that by not having events open to all, the implicit message is that track cycling is not for all.

Ah right. Good idea. I see no reason why events shouldn`t be open to both men and women, letting them compete on truly equal terms. After all, it could be argued that as soon as you have separate events for men and women you are doing little more than reinforcing the idea that women can`t compete on equal terms and need to be catered for in `soft` versions of the `mens` events which as a consequence are never taken as seriously.

That said is it really the case that women are barred from entering men`s races? I had thought that women were allowed to compete against men if they wanted to with even elite women also being allowed to race against 3rd and 2nd category donkeys.

Patrick1.0

Leave the lady alone, Aurelio, your back-handed flirting will get you nowhere

I should change my username to Red right now.

disgruntledgoat

Aurelio just called me a donkey... :oops:

knedlicky

NervexProf wrote:

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/3280314/Vicky-Pendleton-hopes-sexism-ends-at-Olympic-cycling-Olympics.html
Is she right?

The linked Telegraph article says that “Elsewhere in Olympic sport sexual equality and an equal opportunity to win medals is the absolute norm – swimming, athletics, gymnastics, equestrian events and so on”, but this is nonsense. There are swimming and gymnastic events which are women-only, softball too. It’s true women are excluded from some events but not only cycling ones, e.g. canadian canoeing, the rowing-fours, baseball, boxing, certain of the wrestling events – not enough mud, I suppose.

This inaccuracy doesn’t mean I don’t think Vickie Pendleton hasn’t got a point (or that it’s not worth her speaking out about respect and safety for cyclists), but I suspect the main reason for what she’s had to say is that she just wants to increase her stash of medals. She doesn’t mention what other women see as sexism – the difference between the male and female playing costumes in beach basketball.

Re cycling at the Olympics, I’d like to see it more used as a platform for up-and-coming riders, rather than allowing professionals and established stars (including Pendelton) to boost their glory even more. I mean in much the same way is done in football, where the Olympics is insignificant in importance compared to the World Cup, but allows young players to show themselves in international competition.
I’d certainly restrict the men’s road race and time trial to the under-25 years (so to the white jersey contenders at the TdF).

6288

VP is right to speak out tho ... i read the article and she talks about the pressure of having her event last and only one chance of gold ... compare that to bradley wiggins who got his medals and then guffed up the madison ... but no one bothers with that cos he brought home a stash of golds ... if VP has one off day or mental lapse she is branded a failure with no chance to redemption for another 4 years.

I'm not too sure VP can play the media pressure game tho ... she does seem to like to get her face (and anything else they are willing to let her) in the papers so it does bring attention/pressure to her when she finally gets on track.

If i were any of the GB cycling squad i'd get out while i was ahead ... 2012 is a disaster waiting to happen.

flattythehurdler

True equality of course would mean open competition.

RichN95.

All of the other events (with a couple of exceptions like boxing) have more or less equality in terms of numbers of medals, but cycling has less than half the number for women than men.

The UCI should see this as an embarrassment, but I fear they probably barely tolerate women in there sport as it is.

They will probably come out with the (probably made up) excuse of having to cut men's events, but with cycling being the no.1 medal event for the next home nation, this is the perfect time to change it without having to do that.

But imagine Verbruggen to be an old school sexist.

LangerDan

If the issue is "old school sexism" by the UCI, how come there are equivalent male and female events for the other olympic cycling disciplines - road race, TT, BMX and mountain bike?

AFAIK, selection of Olympic events is based on such parameters as global popularity, accessibility, participant numbers etc. I think it would be reasonable to say (though I am happy to be corrected on this) that womens track racing does not enjoy global popularity and certainly would be less popular than the male equivalent. In fact if it wasn't for the relatively recent success of Pendleton, Romero, Reade etc, it is quite likely that many in the UK wouldn't be overly bothered either.

Its funny how I can't recall several of those journalists being upset about the inequality in the numbers of events before Miss P. had a chance of winning them.

stagehopper

LangerDan wrote:

AFAIK, selection of Olympic events is based on such parameters as global popularity, accessibility, participant numbers etc. I think it would be reasonable to say (though I am happy to be corrected on this) that womens track racing does not enjoy global popularity and certainly would be less popular than the male equivalent. In fact if it wasn't for the relatively recent success of Pendleton, Romero, Reade etc, it is quite likely that many in the UK wouldn't be overly bothered either.

The same applies to all global sports with respect to global popularity male v female. It's not an excuse for the laughable sexism that exists in Olympic track cycling though, particularly when the events are run competitively at a world championship level.

Patrick1.0

I just think VP's right. There should be more opportunities for female track cyclists.

aurelio_-_banned

Patrick1.0 wrote:

Leave the lady alone, Aurelio, your back-handed flirting will get you nowhere

I`m not trying to pick on anyone, let alone flirt. It`s just that I feel a coach and horses could be driven through the claim that the smaller number of female cycling events at the Olympics is proof of `sexism` at work. I feel the difference is far more likely to be due to something far more pragmatic, such as the much smaller number of women who choose to become competitive cyclists in comparison with the number of men who do so.

One might even argue that having separate events for women in the first place (and certainly having shorter events for women) amounts to `sexism` by reinforcing the view that women cannot compete with men as equals, being naturally inferior.

I don`t think that the claim that having more Olympic medals on offer would encourage more women to compete at the grass-roots level holds much water either. After all, for 99.9% of male competitors how many Olympic medals exist in cycling is a total irrelevance, given that most of them race for the simple enjoyment of it and they are about as likely to fly to the moon as become contenders for an Olympic gold!

I thought that Blonde`s arguments were weak and to refrain from criticising them simply because she is a female would be both patronising and sexist!

BeaconRuth

aurelio wrote:

One might even argue that having separate events for women in the first place (and certainly having shorter events for women) amounts to `sexism` by reinforcing the view that women cannot compete with men as equals, being naturally inferior.
!

Women are naturally physically inferior at sports involving strength. Stating as much and taking account of it by only requiring women to compete against women is not sexism.

The fact that I cannot 'win' the vast majority of time trials I ride because the fastest woman is not deemed to be a 'winner' in any sense - she is merely the 'First Woman' - that is sexism. Unless an event is designated a 'women only' event then the winner is just the fastest rider, who is a bloke in 99.99% of cases. That means I am effectively competing against blokes almost every time I compete. I cannot compete against men as an equal so why am I not a 'winner' every time I beat all the other women in the same race?

I suppose it doesn't bother blokes, so nobody thinks it's odd............ so the women in my branch of the sport are stuck with blatant sexism almost every time we compete.

Ruth

RedAende

Blonde,

Keep your name, its yours, dont be intimidated by the thought police, I've called all my female friends who are blond, Blondie, since the spaghetti western movie when it applies to Clint Eastwod,(and also my fixation with Deborah Harry but thats off topic) I've always pronounced Blonde or Blondie in a psuedo Glaswegian Mexican accent and its always been taken in good humour, I get much worse back, but I'm a big boy who can take a joke.

LIGHTEN UP folks.

ps: I'm a pure pish cyclist, lol.

stagehopper

aurelio wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

Leave the lady alone, Aurelio, your back-handed flirting will get you nowhere

I`m not trying to pick on anyone, let alone flirt. It`s just that I feel a coach and horses could be driven through the claim that the smaller number of female cycling events at the Olympics is proof of `sexism` at work. I feel the difference is far more likely to be due to something far more pragmatic, such as the much smaller number of women who choose to become competitive cyclists in comparison with the number of men who do so.!

The difference isn't more pragmatic though. Smaller numbers of females choose to be top level athletes in all sports where both men and women compete (ignoring the obvious examples of netball, softball etc). Women in general participate less in sport than men.

As such cycling has no excuse for providing less events for women than men, when other sports in similar "gender imbalance" positions provide exactly the same number of medals. It's a lazy, patronising anachronism.

aurelio_-_banned

stagehopper wrote:

Smaller numbers of females choose to be top level athletes in all sports where both men and women compete (ignoring the obvious examples of netball, softball etc). Women in general participate less in sport than men.

As such cycling has no excuse for providing less events for women than men, when other sports in similar "gender imbalance" positions provide exactly the same number of medals. It's a lazy, patronising anachronism.

Perhaps it`s those other sports who are patronising women by operating what effectively amounts to a policy of `positive` discrimination!

aurelio_-_banned

BeaconRuth wrote:

The fact that I cannot 'win' the vast majority of time trials I ride because the fastest woman is not deemed to be a 'winner' in any sense - she is merely the 'First Woman' - that is sexism.

That is about as valid an example of `sexism` as giving the first second cat and first third category prizes for being, er `the first second cat` and so on, rather than calling them `winners` in their own right, is of `discrimination` against less able male riders!

BeaconRuth

aurelio wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

The fact that I cannot 'win' the vast majority of time trials I ride because the fastest woman is not deemed to be a 'winner' in any sense - she is merely the 'First Woman' - that is sexism.

That is about as valid an example of `sexism` as giving the first second cat and first third category prizes for being, er `the first second cat` and so on, rather than calling them `winners` in their own right, is of `discrimination` against less able male riders!

I can't work out whether you are a wind-up merchant or just stupid. If you really can't see the difference between a woman contesting a mixed event and a 3rd cat bloke contesting a mixed category RR then it's really not worth having a discussion with you.

Ruth

stagehopper

aurelio wrote:

Perhaps it`s those other sports who are patronising women by operating what effectively amounts to a policy of `positive` discrimination!

It doesn't need me to point out to you why there's a historic imbalance in participation, and a restrictive number of events does nothing to aid that but merely maintains the situation. Far from being positive discrimination, an increase in events just goes toward redressing the problem.

OffTheBackAdam

Blonde wrote:

Fewer men do horse riding compared to women, so therefore it would be OK to exclude them from, for instance, the dressage event or from several of the other equestrian disciplines? Of course not.

Last time I noticed, there weren't seperate disciplines for Stallions & Mares.
The horse appears to do rather a lot of the work in equestrian sports, even if the rider doesn't (As I taunt my wife with) "Just sit on top and bounce around a bit".
So the differencies in strength between males & females isn't an issue, thus no need to seperate them.
There are fewer track disciplines for women, because fewer race, full stop.