Help! Discrimination against female cyclists

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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]

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.

[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.

[tribogota]

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.

[Crankin]

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.

[Kiwi Stoker]

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).

[kenyonchris]

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.

[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.

[Irulan]

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.

[alpinerabbit]

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.

[Trek420]

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 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"