GCN does bikepacking

[Bearbonesnorm]

I could say “ I’m organising a ride but due to my personal beliefs I can’t ride with {insert minority of your choice}” I’d be discriminating against people for a reason they have no control over.

But I'm sure we all say to ourselves "I’m organising a ride but due to my personal beliefs I can’t ride with w@nkers" . Think of all the w@nkers, you've gotta feel sorry for them

[Chew]

Would guess that role models are the biggest part of it though.

Also see cricket

Completely the other end of the spectrum of activities to Basketball, but a similar uptake from minorities.

[sean_iow]

I once read that for some cultures riding a bike is seen as what you do if you're too poor to own a car. This might go some way to explain the lack of diversity in cycling in particular?

[Cheddar Man]

I could say “ I’m organising a ride but due to my personal beliefs I can’t ride with {insert minority of your choice}” I’d be discriminating against people for a reason they have no control over.

But I'm sure we all say to ourselves "I’m organising a ride but due to my personal beliefs I can’t ride with w@nkers" . Think of all the w@nkers, you've gotta feel sorry for them

Yeahbut, being a w@nka is not a protected characteristic is it?

No w@nkas on my ride is one thing, 'no [insert protected characteristic] w@nkas' is different. As that would suggest that other w@nkas are allowed, just not a certain group of w@nkas who cannot help having that characteristic.


*Protected characteristics, by the way, are here......

It is against the law to discriminate against someone because of:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief (or none)
sex
sexual orientation

Not inviting a w@nka is not really discrimination as such, it's just not very nice.

[Bearbonesnorm]

Not inviting a w@nka is not really discrimination as such, it's just not very nice.

So, they should be invited on rides then?

[Cheddar Man]

Not inviting a w@nka is not really discrimination as such, it's just not very nice.

So, they should be invited on rides then?

Well it's up to you, if they are a proper nobber then don't bother.

Just don't post up on here that 'I was going to invite this person on a ride but I didn't because I can't stand gay w@nkas' That is discrimination. Just say 'I was going to invite this person, but didn't because he is a w@nka and I can't be bothered spending 4 hours with him'

You are allowed to not particularly like some people, that's absolutely fine. Just don't discriminate against them as a result of their colour/gender/orientation etc. Which I am sure you don't.

[Cheddar Man]

I have enjoyed the video in the OP though!

[ScotRoutes]

However, discrimination isn’t right for whatever reasons.

Actually, you might be wrong. There are many women-only events because it is recognised that this is a good way of encouraging participation amongst an under-represented group. If there is some cultural barrier that prevents participation by religious groups then maybe that would be a solution. (as a white man, it was Shafs exclusion of pub stops that made me raise my eyebrows )

[Lazarus]

and the reason they need them is because of the way some of us treat them in wider society.

I know Mrs Lazarus wont sleep out on her own - I would assume being a victim of sexual assault is not something any man has given a great deal of though to when Bikepacking
the point being that different groups get to experince very different things
Not all of them are as great as being white male and straight.
You can either try to make this discrimination less or you can moan about the fact they moan about the discrimination

No one is saying you need to be friends with everyone we are just saying you cannot not be friends with them just because they are a Muslim, Black, Homosexual etc. Though you can dislike them because they constantly go on about access rights and rub your face in it

Without challenging the status quo very little witll change. White straight men* need to add their voice to those less powerful than us and more oppressed than us ; be an ally basically not another barrier.

[Bearbonesnorm]

Actually, you might be wrong. There are many women-only events because it is recognised that this is a good way of encouraging participation amongst an under-represented group. If there is some cultural barrier that prevents participation by religious groups then maybe that would be a solution. (as a white man, it was Shafs exclusion of pub stops that made me raise my eyebrows )

Is positive discrimination not something of a grey area? As an example, the Adventure Syndicate target teenage girls and exclude boys (and yes, I appreciate the reasons for this). However, do teenage boys not suffer such things as low self esteem, lack of confidence etc? Does positive discrimination not perhaps just shift the problem from one group to another ultimately?

[Chew]

Is positive discrimination not something of a grey area? As an example, the Adventure Syndicate target teenage girls and exclude boys (and yes, I appreciate the reasons for this). However, do teenage boys not suffer such things as low self esteem, lack of confidence etc? Does positive discrimination not perhaps just shift the problem from one group to another ultimately?

I’m sure it would be on shaky ground if it was ever challenged, but it’s only being done for positive reasons.
I’m sure the argument is that those groups already exist for Teenage boys.

But isn’t this years Ladies LHC positive discrimination?
The idea that it may encourage a minority group to participate?

[Bearbonesnorm]

I’m sure the argument is that those groups already exist for Teenage boys.

Do they? Would that not be seen as discrimination?

But isn’t this years Ladies LHC positive discrimination?
The idea that it may encourage a minority group to participate?

Absolutely and weirdly (perhaps) no takers for it.

[jameso]

As an example, the Adventure Syndicate target teenage girls and exclude boys (and yes, I appreciate the reasons for this). However, do teenage boys not suffer such things as low self esteem, lack of confidence etc?

All the reasons why A.S are so effective in what they do aside, I guess we could be looking around and asking why male bikepackers and outdoor leaders don't follow their lead and offer something similar for boys? Or, why more don't? (I don't know if some already do). There will be people doing similar things with bushcraft and other outdoor pursuits, I'm not sure if there is a bike camping equivalent or not or if A.S. are just far more visible to us (that visibility/profile being part of what puts them in the position to fulfil the role so well). It must be a liability, records checking and red tape headache to do it but they manage.
Also I expect some of what they do is about the girls playing a boy's game and in more and more cases being equals. Apply that in reverse .. I wonder how far it would get.

TNR positively discriminates towards women entrants and it had a positive affect on gender balance, following the TCR's lead there. I'm not aware of anyone close to the event, entrants etc even questioning it and I can't see it being widened to racial minorities as anything but a good thing (interested in any comments here or PM from anyone on that). The question I ask myself is why didn't that positive discrimination on ethnicity happen at the same time as it did for gender? It just didn't occur to me then.

[jameso]

I’m sure the argument is that those groups already exist for Teenage boys.

Do they? Would that not be seen as discrimination?

Depends what the reason for it is? Boys who lack a father figure get time with a good male role model as a diversion from potential routes to criminality or other bad influences - can't see that as discriminatory in the same way that A.S. do what they do for girls because of who they are.

[Chew]

I’m sure the argument is that those groups already exist for Teenage boys.

Do they? Would that not be seen as discrimination?

Not specifically, but when you look at the majority of “outdoor” type groups, say cycling, climbing, etc. then they are all male dominated. So they act as the male equivalent by default.

[Taylor]

Why are some referring to the video as top gear for bikes?
I thought it was fairly informative, especially for the uninitiated, not completely my style of bikepacking but I learned about fillmybottle.com, or whatever it is called.

[Bearbonesnorm]

This is the last thing I'll say before I shut up. Reading back through the posts which are mostly written by middleaged white men and I thought, 'really WTF do we know?' We're coming up with reasons as to why some groups appear to be largely missing from the cycling / walking / climbing worlds but they're largely guesses. Has anyone actually ever bothered to ask these groups directly what the reasons are? ... that's a genuine question BTW.

[Dean]

Has anyone actually ever bothered to ask these groups directly what the reasons are? ... that's a genuine question BTW.

I did cover this subject in conversation with my friends as I mentioned in my post, it was some years ago and I can't remember exactly what they said to confidently confirm.

[jameso]

This is the last thing I'll say before I shut up. Reading back through the posts which are mostly written by middleaged white men and I thought, 'really WTF do we know?' We're coming up with reasons as to why some groups appear to be largely missing from the cycling / walking / climbing worlds but they're largely guesses. Has anyone actually ever bothered to ask these groups directly what the reasons are? ... that's a genuine question BTW.

Same here, was going to leave it out of same concern and I know little to zero but learn from the discussion. I have asked about gender and race, has come up both in bike industry and event talk, mainly gender. Was asked about gender re TNR and a couple of useful conversations followed as that was specific to bikepacking. Might be telling that the race q didn't come from me until recently and there's not been a clear reason mentioned in the way that risk/vulnerability can be with gender and bikepacking. Many wider factors adding up and cycling being a result or mirror of those things, bikepacking as a niche in a that. Also tbh, I feel I'm not one to initiate those conversations more widely, not a sociologist or someone with any useful perspective.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I did cover this subject in conversation with my friends as I mentioned in my post, it was some years ago and I can't remember exactly what they said to confidently confirm.

Sorry, I didn't make that very clear. When I said 'anybody' I really meant anybody such as British Cycling. BMC, Ramblers, etc.

[sean_iow]

British Cycling have a report on the subject, linked from this Web page

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/road/ ... g-report-0

[RIP]

I really hesitate to air any views on this - it's fraught with pitfalls and complexities.

However I'm internally battling with a few questions at the moment and this is a "pub philosophy" thread (well it wasn't originally of course ).

I'm struck by Stu's comment. Most of us are approaching this from a "whitey" standpoint. We cannot speak for other viewpoints. To speak on their behalf is presumptious and patronising I feel. That does not preclude expressions of support for other viewpoints. It could also be said that certain ways of talking about 'minorities' actually makes things worse - adding 'victim' status is not helpful. And what is a 'minority'? 5% of something? 49%? It's also rarely the case that the 'minority' has one common feature - there are many overlapping ones some of which may even contradict the main minority 'label'.

The existence of 100% 'white' groups and stating that this is not 'representative' or 'equality' is fairly meaningless. Do the unrepresented people want to be represented? The group cannot magic up a representative simply because one isn't present but 'should' be. That can only happen once an unrepresented person introduces themselves and asks the others to accept them. The others will either do so or not - and if not, it will be on the basis of 'discrimination' or 'dislike'.

Also the person attempting to join a group has a responsibility to present themselves as 'acceptable' to the group or to convince the group they fit in, or would benefit the group if the 'fit' did not currently exist. Otherwise we are patronising the joiner.

What is the dividing line between 'discrimination' and 'dislike'? Comments above imply that 'dislike' of an individual is ok, or at least cannot be helped in some way. But 'discrimination' is not ok.

If you dislike someone should you still be forced to accept them? Or censured for not accepting them? Perhaps the dislike is because you do not like gravel bikes and they do. Should you be forced to accept them? Perhaps it is because their skin is black (or equally the case of a white person attempting to join an all-black group - it works both ways!)? I think it's pretty clear the former is ok but the latter isn't. Personally, if for example a 'non white skinned' person introduced themselves to the WRT Lonely Hearts Club it wouldn't even cross my mind not to 'accept' them or even register the fact. However if I later discovered that they were a - gasp - gravel bike fan, am I then allowed to think about it and even potentially 'reject' them?

But why is it clear one thing is ok but the other isn't? Both are characteristics of the person trying to be accepted. Is it because black skin is something that cannot be 'helped' - one is born with it- but gravelbiking is a choice formed after birth and therefore 'fair game'?

Ok that seemed fairly clear cut. But someone above mentioned one is not allowed to discriminate on grounds of skin colour, religion or sexual orientation. But a strong case could be made that 'skin colour' is something you have no choice over and makes no difference to your attitudes/characteristics. Same with sex, although some would argue there is sometimes an element of choice there. However, religion and politics? They seem no different to gravelbiking, and therefore fair game for 'dislike' and therefore rejection by the group if they do not wish to absorb those opinions and views. It can be argued that one is not born 'Christian' or 'Socialist' or whatever. Or are you? Maybe it's part birth and part environment/nurture? And the latter becomes more of a choice. I cannot choose being black so don't discriminate against me but feel free to do so because you don't like my politics/religion which I had some influence over. I would say religion and politics are hugely influenced by environment and nurture. So they are in the ground between discriminate and dislike - but where in that ground?

Many political and religious features can cross onto the list of someone's 'dislikes' (eg support for the death penalty or support for banning women from driving) and therefore fair game for exclusion by a group who do not like those opinions/views. Therefore it is not 'discriminatory' to resist integrating a person who likes something you dislike?

So again, someone define the difference between 'discriminate' and 'dislike' before we argue about whether one is reasonable or not.

Oh and I shall mention again my view that 'race' is a meaningless term so cannot be discriminated against. It can? Please clearly define 'race' for me then. It isn't 'black' or 'African' - ALL of us were black and African once. To do with borders? There are no borders really. Is race skin colour? We've agreed that cannot be discriminated against or disliked. Or is it attitudes / music / religion / politics / food choices / gravelbiking? Ah, now we're back to things that could just be disliked....

Hmm.

In defence against what would appear to be my ambivalence/detachedness, I would say I'd initially welcome anyone into the WRT LHC because everyone is a human being - until we discovered they were gravelbikers and/or D Trump, at which point 'dislike' might well kick in ....

And now... back to the studio.....

[Bearbonesnorm]

I believe some very good points there Reg which I think show it's a much deeper topic than it may first appear, yet one that could be largely negated if everyone simply applied Rule #1.

Why are some referring to the video as top gear for bikes?

Don't know. The presenters didn't keep using the word 'torques' did they like those bellends who present top gear? Dear God (of your choice obviously) someone please tell them that a 'torque' is not a unit of measurment like a horsepower or watt and the continual use proves the earlier point about bellends.

[whitestone]

Participation by group X in activities commonly seen as being done by group Y presents a dilemma. If you are in group X and there's no-one else from your group participating then that's a huge barrier to you stepping forward to do so. There's certainly no "role model" from whom to take a cue and depending on what the difference is between X & Y it may be plainly obvious that you are "different". That difference requires a huge amount of self-confidence to overcome.

I've chatted before with Stu about female participation, or lack thereof, in BB events. I'm membership secretary of the Bob Graham Club so have actual data about participation rates. We've currently 2169 men and 215 women members, that's just 9% of the total which is frankly embarrassing. But remember that this is a self-selected group, back to that self-confidence, and is itself drawn from the fairly small population of fell runners. Female participation in adult fell races is around 12%, in the junior races it's much higher but I don't have a figure for that. Fell running is one of the lowest cost sports to take part in, possibly as a result it's also one of the most equitable: it's as likely that you find yourself lining up next to the British or even World champion at a race as you would the local Clydesdale. So if such a low entry cost sport struggles to have a representative proportion of women participants then there's less likelihood in high cost sports like cycling/bikepacking/etc., that cost is another barrier.

For many years my main sport was climbing and there were very few BAME climbers, we are talking less than 100 nationwide possibly less than 10. It may be that there's greater participation now. I wouldn't take this as justification for finger pointing.

Positive discrimination can be useful in kick starting participation by underrepresented groups. That doesn't mean it has to continue in perpetuity as there's then the danger of subconscious divisions: "Oh, you're an X, your group is over there".

Stu: Top Gear has become very self-deprecating, I'm sure they know exactly what torque refers to.

[frogatthefarriers]

I was just wondering, how a comment about a short YouTube Video about bike packing (watched it, didn’t find anything of particular interest), became a three page not-quite-argument about racial discrimination.