Help! Discrimination against female cyclists

[witeowl]

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.

[SheFly]

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

[Irulan]

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.

[shootingstar]

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.

[Crankin]

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.

[MartianDestiny]

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.