Help! Discrimination against female cyclists

[SadieKate]

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 . . .

[Veronica]

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

Veronica

[kermit]

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.

[OakLeaf]

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?!

[SadieKate]

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.

[lunacycles]

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.

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.

[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.

[MartianDestiny]

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.

[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.

[MartianDestiny]

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).

[lunacycles]

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.