Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Postby Scotness » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:22 am

Anyone read this in todays Brisbane Times

Cycling is of “negligible” importance but has benefited from disproportionate government support because Australia's mostly male policy makers are looking out for the nation's mostly male cyclists.

That's the claim of an RMIT report, released last month, which compares how people travel to work across Australia.

According to the report, which analysed 35 years of census data, Australian women are greater public transport users than men, who were most likely to cycle to work (77 per cent) or drive (57 per cent).

Overall, cars remain the top mode of transport, with the number of drivers nearly doubling from 2.02 million in 1976 to 3.94 million in 2011 as public and active transport use has dipped.
Advertisement

“Perhaps this helps explain why the 'male' modes of car driving and cycling receive more policy and media attention than the female-dominated modes of walking and public transport,” concluded authors Dr Paul Mees and Dr Lucy Groenhart.




It goes on with a good response from Ben Wilson - for my two cents I think the problem is some acadmemics look for some kind of undercurrent of bigotry to embed their findings in to try and give them some extra credibility and significance ~ or to create an overarching narrative. Of course at times such bigotry truly exists, but other times the authors are just clutching at straws - which is clearly the case here.

Contrary arguements and reasoning haven't been considered when they jumped at the conclusion that more men cycle, therefor investment in cycling infrastructure is sexist.

Why didn't they consider the fact that studies have shown that more investment in cycling infrastructure makes the laneways safer and that attracts more women. In fact if you really want to be ridiculous you could say this is sexist investment against men in favour of women because it's women who mostly feel the need for the cycle lanes to be safer, not men.

No mention too of the myriad of footpaths for pedestrians (which they argue women prefer) that must out number cycle lanes by a thousand to one.

What a joke - the simple facts are cycling is good for men and women, and walking is good for men and women - any improvement to any infrastrucutre for either is good for us all. My bet is the authors of the report don't do much cycling or walking! If the infrastrucutre by design could only benefit one sex it would be sexist, but that is not the case. And they honestly wonder why the term "academic" is a by word for irrelevant!!
Find and give things for free - locally and globally - free-economy.org
Scotness
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:22 pm

by BNA » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:33 am

BNA
 

Re: Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Postby bychosis » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:33 am

What a joke, next thing they'll be trying to make it racist somehow.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
User avatar
bychosis
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Postby elantra » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:02 am

Unbelievable.
Considering that this press release comes from Melbourne, it is truly bizarre that it only sees the light of day in a Brisbane online news bulletin.
Probably this thread should go to General discussion.
"Technology gives us much more information but Education is never be able to give us the skill to evaluate it"
User avatar
elantra
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:01 am
Location: Trying to avoid the Brisbane traffic.

Re: Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:33 am

bychosis wrote:What a joke, next thing they'll be trying to make it racist somehow.
But it must be racist too as I see more white males cycling than anyone else. Probably ageist as well as most of them are middle aged. :wink:
Nobody
 
Posts: 6635
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Postby Ozkaban » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:33 pm

.. But hang on. If cycling is more male biased, and public transport is female biased, then given public transport costs a bucket load more than the joke that's called cycling infrastructure, isn't the balance of sexism firmly against men???
Ozkaban
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Postby Mulger bill » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:59 pm

Ozkaban wrote:.. But hang on. If cycling is more male biased, and public transport is female biased, then given public transport costs a bucket load more than the joke that's called cycling infrastructure, isn't the balance of sexism firmly against men???


Not if you're pushing some sort of agenda, like the report seems to be :roll:
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25694
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Naughty naughty sexist cycling investment!

Postby PB12IN » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:12 pm

Love this reply
Damn that well known misogynist Clover Moore and her outrageously sexist support for cycle lanes...

Commenter Percy Location Surry Hills Date and time January 12, 2013, 2:14PM
PB12IN
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Gold Coast


Return to Queensland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit