Help! Discrimination against female cyclists

Hello,

I'm an U19 sprint cyclist from Australia, and am currently in my final year at school. I'm doing an investigation on the discrimination against female cyclists, (especially sprint). Part of my investigation is to compare the discrimination in Australia with that of different countries, so I was wondering if any of you would be able to help me?

Do you have any information about how female cyclists within your country are discriminated against as opposed to males (for example income, media representation, events provided), and how your cycling nations have tried to overcome this issue?

Any information, links or personal oppinions would be GREATLY appreciated!!

My email is annette.edmondson@hotmail.com if you feel that would be easier.

Thank you,

Nettie

I can't really help much because I'm not familiar with anyone who's at the world class level, but I CAN tell you that bike stores have a lot more merchandise to sell to men than what's available to Women. Especially seats and shoes.

I notice that a lot of the ads in cycling publications that have to do with women are selling "pretty" stuff. It's nice that there are women-specific designs, but I don't need a "pretty" pink floral floor pump.

Welcome to TE!

We range here from newbies, commuters to pro and semi pro riders so I'm sure someone on that level will chime in shortly. I certainly don't see women's pro cycling on Versus :cool: On the Amgen Tour de CA the worlds best of women's pro cycling are treated like an opening act, just a pre-ride show. :(

No bus, no hotel, no masseuse, no stationary trainer to warm up, no pre or post ride feast .... I went to see them ride and most are changing back into street clothes in their car.

The money's not there from sponsors, nor the support except for a few loyal fans.

Quote:

---

The money's not there from sponsors, nor the support except for a few loyal fans.

---

One could argue that it's economics, not discrimination. It's a chicken and egg scenario if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irulan

One could argue that it's economics, not discrimination. It's a chicken and egg scenario if you ask me.

---

Now if the women would just race in the same outfits as women's beach volleyball . . . :rolleyes:

Yeah, they could use a skimpy little tri suit to race in. :D

Veronica

I'm no expert, and a recreational rider and sometime triathlete. I think this sport is always going to shadow the men. As long as you have guys like Lance around, well... If you look at other sports there might be a different outcome. Chrissy Wellington is the girl in tri sports, Dara Torres in swimming. If the women could get a big race like the tour the stars will emerge. I don't know... Alot of sports are at the mercy of the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irulan

One could argue that it's economics, not discrimination. It's a chicken and egg scenario if you ask me.

---

Good point. I see the same in all sports, from basketball on down. Track and gymnastics might be the exceptions (and, of course, synchronized swimming).

If people don't watch, then the sponsors don't get their audience, so there's no money in it. So, really, if we're going to blame anyone for the discrimination, we have to blame the general viewership.

At least, that's how I see it, however unfair (and based in ignorance) it may be.

Here's the hard reality regarding women's racing in the US vs. men's - the numbers aren't there.

• I went to a local 3-day stage race last night and there were EIGHT women vs. 135 men.

• I raced in an MTB race this past weekend: 23 Pro men starters vs. 3 Pro women and 43 men vs. 1 women starting the Cat 1 race.

• At the Fitchburg race (NRC) the numbers were a bit closer: 129 Pro 1 men, and 97 women in the 1/2 race. (To compare equally, if we combine the men's 1/2 like they do for the women, there were 204 men)

Without the same numbers of women racing, you see things like combined fields, shorter distances, lesser prize payouts and not as much attention. in the Tour of California, they shortened what was intended to be a 3 stage race to a crit, and gave that race a whopping 5 minutes of TV coverage.

I don't agree that this is discrimination, as others have also said. I think this is a case of people (promoters, sponsors, etc.) investing their dollars where they will see the highest return.

And FWIW, I race Expert MTB, Elite Women's Road and Elite Women's Cross (but no track, sorry!).

SheFly

Quote:

---

I don't agree that this is discrimination, as others have also said. I think this is a case of people (promoters, sponsors, etc.) investing their dollars where they will see the highest return.

---

This is exactly what I meant with my comment on the economics of it all, thank you for expanding on it.

When I hear the word discrimination, I really think of the intent to keep a group down: Jim Crow, segregated schools, organizations that exclude based on gender, religion etc.

In women's sports, I don't think its an intention to exclude; I think that it's whomever in charge following the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by witeowl

Good point. I see the same in all sports, from basketball on down. Track and gymnastics might be the exceptions (and, of course, synchronized swimming).

If people don't watch, then the sponsors don't get their audience, so there's no money in it. So, really, if we're going to blame anyone for the discrimination, we have to blame the general viewership.

At least, that's how I see it, however unfair (and based in ignorance) it may be.

---

Agreed.

Another issue is the word itself. "Discrimination", at least in the US, is a highly charged word that typically elicits a strong emotional response and conjures images of lynchings, beatings, etc and then the flip side of affirmative action that doesn't feed pleasant feelings for most either.

Is it really "Discrimination" in this light or is it a lack of public interest that leads to a lack of funding, etc, as described much better above (or the other way around). Is this actually discrimination or is it basic economics? If the tables were turned and women's cycling were more popular with the majority of the population than idk, men's soccer, would they still be funded less than the men's soccer players because they are female? I doubt it, but THAT would be discrimination.

Are we, as women, really being told "you can't play with the boys because you are a girl" or is it really more "we aren't going to fund you to play with the boys because you as an individual are not fast enough"?

Are cyclists in general discriminated against because they aren't being paid as much, or given as much air time as College Football players in the US? Or is it again, economics, because the companies involved simply don't get a return on their investment in the cyclists while they roll in the dough with the football players? Should the later really be classified with the term discrimination or is it simply a free market economy (or something else)?

Hard questions that go far far deeper than crying "women cyclists are being discriminated against" and definitely muddy the water of that assertion. Why is it that we, as a society, idolize some athletes and throw other, equally as talented individuals, by the wayside. And on a whole 'nother aside, why do we idolize and lavish athletes and barely pay the individuals that save our sorry butts day in and day out a living wage? Should we be decrying that as discrimination? (yes, IMO, we should be decrying that...is discrimination really the best term?)

I guess by now you've gathered that my opinion is that it's not so much that the treatment of women athletes or athletes from underrepresented sports is unfair, unwarranted, and discriminatory, but rather that the treatment (pay scale) of certain classes of athletes is outlandish and absurd and should be more in line with the former, rather than the former being more in line with them. I also feel there is a whole lot more involved in what, at first glance, may look like something you could tag with the word discrimination (though I really feel that is a word to tread lightly around and use very carefully).

Getting off professional cyclists for a moment and into the struggles of the mere mortals...

It's not uncommon that I walk into a bike shop and there are NO bikes that fit me let alone high end bikes that fit me; it's also not uncommon that a brand will not even make a bike small enough. Should that be labeled as discrimination against small female riders or is it a prudent business move due to limited production funds and limited demand (hence a more limited supply). As much as it annoys me, and as much as I support those who change their definition of prudent business to cater to me, I don't find the ones that don't discriminatory. 100% of the bikes should not be marketed to 1% of the cyclists or the whole industry would crash (numbers pulled out of my rearend and are completely fake). Obviously I support those companies that supply a product for my niche; I hardly expect every company to do so.

Now, when I walk into a shop and get talked down to, or steered toward the entry level hybrid bike with pink flowers after describing my riding abilities as "intermediate", my desires as "XC race and endurance, full suspension", and my budget as "2-3k", IS discrimination and it IS insulting. (and yes, that's a true example)

I'm sorry this was a bit longwinded, and I don't have the answers to all the questions I just asked. It's more an exercise in starting to ask the harder questions that underlay this topic/issue. I'd encourage you to think about them and research them a little. In fact maybe a better way to approach the issue is from a topic along the lines of "Social, economic, and cultural influences on the popularity and pay of professional athletes: why some obtain star status while others remain unsupported and how/why this should change". Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kermit

As long as you have guys like Lance around, well... If you look at other sports there might be a different outcome. Chrissy Wellington is the girl in tri sports, Dara Torres in swimming.

---

And Jeannie Longo is who, chopped liver?!

Jeannie Longo has never received much in the way of sponsorship. If the reports are correct, she has had a great deal to do with this. I don't think she'll ever win a popularity contest.

And she still competes in a very small field, as shefly states.

If you see this in terms of numbers of women vs. men in races translating into who gets more prize money, etc..., then I think these arguments are somewhat valid.

But fact is more than half the cyclists in the U.S. are women (or at least that was the case the last time I saw these statistics). Weirdly, that by and large hasn't translated into hiring an equal number of women as sales people and mechanics in shops, equal offerings (quality-wise) in the way of equipment, equal opportunity for women with the industry, etc. I am not saying it is overt discrimination, but the industry itself could do a lot better (and make more money) by taking women as seriously as men when it comes to marketing the sport and product development. I have to say, however, it is hugely improved over even a decade ago--and that is mostly because women have spoken out and the industry is beginning to get it that women are willing to spend money given a good-fitting, quality product.

Quote:

---

It's not uncommon that I walk into a bike shop and there are NO bikes that fit me let alone high end bikes that fit me; it's also not uncommon that a brand will not even make a bike small enough. Should that be labeled as discrimination against small female riders or is it a prudent business move due to limited production funds and limited demand (hence a more limited supply). As much as it annoys me, and as much as I support those who change their definition of prudent business to cater to me, I don't find the ones that don't discriminatory. 100% of the bikes should not be marketed to 1% of the cyclists or the whole industry would crash (numbers pulled out of my rearend and are completely fake). Obviously I support those companies that supply a product for my niche; I hardly expect every company to do so.

---

You should. I don't see how providing at least a few bikes for those at both ends of the spectrum (small and tall) is marketing 100% of the bikes to 1% of the population. I have many customers and potential customers who literally feel it has been impossible to access or enjoy the sport because equipment does not exist for them, or their LBS isn't willing to carry it. My suppliers are always out of 165mm cranks and never seem to feel the need to order enough of them, even though they exist and I buy up pretty much the whole lot whenever they do bother to stock them. If my supplier doesn't buy them (despite my begging them to), then the next thing that happens is Shimano stops making them (as Campy did a few years back). I have never seen this issue to this degree with other sports equally enjoyed by both sexes: skiing, running, hiking, etc., although I am not on the industry side of those sports.

And Oakleaf: +1.

my dos centavos.

as to women sized bikes, we're a lot more than 1% of the population. The average height of a female human is 5'4". That means 1/2 of all women are shorter than that. And much shorter than that, good luck fitting a standard bicycle.

sorry for the thread drift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irulan

This is exactly what I meant with my comment on the economics of it all, thank you for expanding on it.

When I hear the word discrimination, I really think of the intent to keep a group down: Jim Crow, segregated schools, organizations that exclude based on gender, religion etc.

In women's sports, I don't think its an intention to exclude; I think that it's whomever in charge following the money.

---

I understand about the chicken and egg problem.
However to garner corporate sponsorship dollars, often it requires educating potential sponsors of why it's worth investing in training support dollars for a marginalized group or a group of players /people that general public don't know their potential.

Canadian women playing hockey at the national and international levels is an interesting case...where more and more girls/women are playing hockey when they are younger.

My partner worked for a major national oil firm that consciously promoted its women into senior management ranks since the 1970's. This was a huge deal when there were less women in engineering positions compared to now. The firm's committment to equity is reflected as one of the corporate sponsor's for Canadian women's hockey.
http://www.whockey.com/country/canada/nats/ It wouldn't be surprising that this sponsorship is highly influenced by:

a) their employees who have daughters who play hockey. Or some female employees playing hockey. One has to influence the decision-makers who hold the corporate purse strings for big dollar sponsorship for a women's sport that is not well known for large numbers of pro /international participation. And some of those decision-makers in senior ranks...are women. I am a strong believer in ripple effect of social change in 1 area that spills over in ever-widening circles.

b) there is a critical mass of a) that generates public interest who will pay.

c) a) +b) enough experienced athletes to influence/inspire next generation for more regular participants in races, etc.

The big question for corporate sponsorship of women in pro cycling/events from their perspective is: Why bother? How does corporate dollars in pro cycling translate for long-standing benefits to the bigger community/world?

Methinks that alot of us long-term cyclists can immediately respond what would be the long-term benefits of corporate dollars spent on encouraging competitive cycling, or cycling in general for that matter. Problem sometimes, is motivating others to stick to/get into cycling long enough.

Maybe we're thinking just about the current type of racing choices. Why couldn't there be a long endurance race of all women's teams across the continent? This might give more long term publicity that would be comparable to the tour. Of course, back to same 'problem', would there be enough qualified women who would want to pariticipate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lunacycles

You should.

---

I do not see it as Discrimination and I disagree with you that I should. They are a business and for whatever reason they choose not to directly cater to me. In many areas that I have been in I can totally understand that it could not be a wise business move (very few cyclists period, forget women my height and an XS bike could easily sit on the floor for years until it's worthless...especially a nice one). When I have been in areas with a reasonable cycling culture I have had no problems whatsoever testing bikes in my size range.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't help me. They'd all order the bikes. The good ones would order them with little to no obligation on my part. The bad ones...well, just because I don't see it as discrimination does NOT mean I choose to do business with them, they are then a company that does not provide a service to me so I don't have a use for them.

If it's discriminatory for a business to narrow a client base and then cater to them at the exclusion of others then there are quite a few WOMEN'S ONLY sporting goods shops around me that CLEARLY need to be slapped with a lawsuit because they'd laugh any guy asking them to order "men's" equipment right out of the store. I don't see any "men's only" stores around...

Heck, if you want to go that far my own bike shop "discriminates" against non-serious cyclists. ANYONE that walks in the door gets treated the same no doubt (that's one of the many reasons they get all my hard earned play money), but they don't stock bikes under $1500, only stock Ultegra and Dura Ace or equivalent (even down to brake pads!). You want $30 commuter tires, nope, sorry, $90 race tires is all they've got. They've chosen their niche and they cater to it (and yes, they'd gladly order the cheaper parts and bikes if asked). If they didn't narrow they'd be out of business as there's plenty of competition around here and they can't possibly stock everything.

Businesses don't have to be everything to everybody, but they do have to treat everybody that walks in the door with the same amount of respect while saying "I'm sorry, we don't stock that here, why don't you try ____ or we'll be happy to order you ____ that's similar from our supplier".

Now, a certain National outdoors store refusing to carry all sizes of Chacos AND refusing to order them either...that urks me. Still don't think I'm ready to label it "discrimination", I think it's used far to frequently and too liberally giving it's historical connotations. Poor understanding of that aspect of their customer base and customer relations, yes (something I should fix by writing a letter).

This subject is complicated, because, as others have said, it's not just a problem of women being discriminated against or underrepresented in racing. It's a problem with cycling generating the same kind of interest as let's say baseball (the only other sport I know something about). A couple of months ago, Nicole Freedman, the "bike czar" for the city of Boston spoke to my club. Most of the other listeners were shocked when she told her story of the conditions she lived under and how little money she made in her time as a pro/Cat 1 racer. We were not. Our former exchange student was a pro for 2 development level teams in Germany and last year rode for the Rite Aid team, based out of Philadelphia. He had to take a "break" from his crappy lifestyle last June and come "home" to stay with us for 2 weeks, before racing at Fitchburg. It wasn't just a vacation. Living in a cement square room, with hardly any money and no car was hard. He trained well and they liked him, but now that this was the third team that folded (their successor asked him back and he said no), he went back to Germany and started a business and was going to school part time. He's now going to be starting college at a state school in Colorado, where they are paying his whole way and living expenses to be on their cycling team. At age 24, he just couldn't take the financial chances that being a pro was asking of him. He didn't ride from September to March, because he was so emotionally upset over this. Since his business is on line and he has partners, he can continue it, while in school.
So, I can imagine how a woman would be treated. And, as Margo said, half of the recreational/fitness cyclists are women. Around here, it seems as if it's more than half. The industry needs to listen to us, because we are a huge group who have buying power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

as to women sized bikes, we're a lot more than 1% of the population. The average height of a female human is 5'4". That means 1/2 of all women are shorter than that. And much shorter than that, good luck fitting a standard bicycle.

sorry for the thread drift.

---

I never said "women sized bikes", I said bikes that fit ME.

I am "much shorter than that" (if you are quoting 5'4") and I can fit well on a decent handful of the major manufacturers' "standard bicycles" (both WSD and "unisex"). I can't go pick any bike from any manufacturer and make it fit like some people can, but it's not some major disaster requiring custom frames and odd angles like a lot of more "average" people like to make it out to be.

I also clearly stated that I made the numbers up and had no faith in them being close to correct. You can either get hung up on the number itself and argue it with me (I won't argue back) or you can understand the point I was making. Your choice. I stand behind the spirit of it, manufacturers should not be required to cater their entire product lines to every potential user no matter how small the subgroup and I don't think there should be legal implications if they choose not to optimize their products for a specific user demographic (and saying it's discriminatory for them to do this, at least in the US, implies a criminal and legally liable action). If you think it should be a legal issue then I hope you don't mind kissing the women's specific companies/stores/sub-brands goodbye.

Quote:

---

Quote:
I do not see it as Discrimination and I disagree with you that I should.

---

My words were in direct response to the last sentence of your paragraph where you said about bike companies providing bikes for people of your size:

"I hardly expect every company to do so."

I responded: you should.

It wasn't meant as a judgment, sorry if it came across that way. Where or when you see discrimination isn't for me to judge--I was not talking about what you should see as discrimination. I was talking about business decisions made on the parts of bike companies that affect you the consumer that, in the end, affect the chain of supply and what your options are as a consumer.

Yeah, I am happy to order anything for a customer without ever stocking it. That is simply instant profit. I risk nothing. But investing in it by putting it in my inventory and, in a shop's case, on the floor where you can test ride it and talk with me about it before you are obligated to buy it means (in my mind) that you matter as much as my other customers for whom I provide many options.

I am oversimplifying, but I do believe that speaking up about what we want and need as consumers makes a difference.

drifting further.
Just for the record, Triathlon gives equal pay in the prize money categories and the professional level races are for both, equal conditions, and equal race courses, plus they are now developing paralimpic triathlon for the london olympics.
YEAH Triathlon.
I guess being a newer sport helps generate more equality from the beginning, whereas cycling, they have to fight many more decades of discrimination.

I agree with you Margo. I had to go through hell to get 165 cranks for my Kuota. This after the LBS owner told me that the 170s would "make me into a climbing queen." Yea, right, if you pay for the personal trainer to do that.
While I agree that some unisex bikes will fit me at barely 5'1" (I have one), it takes a lot of work to make that happen. I would have preferred not to have had to research short and shallow bars and short reach brifters on my own, after spending what I did. I had 2 WSD bikes before this one; one was just cheap/entry level with crappy components, but the other one was OK. What I want is CHOICE. The same choice that a 5 foot 9 inch male would have.

In regards to bike sponsorship in NZ and Australia provided by bike distributers, the package offered to both male and female sponsored riders (this includes triathletes, BMX etc) is exactly the same. Same amount of product, dollars and support (replacement parts etc is bike damaged).

This is an easy fix. I buy men's stuff. At 5'4, 110 lbs, I buy men's extra small. I HATE the flowery, pink women's stuff. It looks a little big on me, but whatever. Should I have to do that? Well, it is whatever the market will bear. I don't think that society is as gender or race driven as money driven. If the majority of buyers had prehensile tails, then all our shorts would have tail holes in them.

Perhaps for the original poster who started this thread, she might consider asking a group of women cyclists who predominantly race at the national level and beyond, for their opinion.

I am not clear how much training is required to compete at that level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shootingstar

Perhaps for the original poster who started this thread, she might consider asking a group of women cyclists who predominantly race at the national level and beyond, for their opinion.

I am not clear how much training is required to compete at that level.

---

I"m think OP was a flyby looking for homework help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irulan

I"m think OP was a flyby looking for homework help.

---

Maybe she is simply genuinely trying to do research for her homework. I see questionnaires posted on other boards. She doesn't have one, but still she was politely and eloquently asking for anecdotal accounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinerabbit

Maybe she is simply genuinely trying to do research for her homework. I see questionnaires posted on other boards. She doesn't have one, but still she was politely and eloquently asking for anecdotal accounts.

---

If the op is lurking I took the liberty of googling her e-mail and she appears to be a racer, and good one :D And welcome to TE.

The discussion is good, it's an important issue. I move that we drift on. All those in favor say "aye" :cool: