Author Topic: #LadyRiderProblems  (Read 3001 times)

Offline Watcher

  • What is this? I always know...
  • MotoGP Racer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2456
  • Karma: +39/-0
  • MSF RiderCoach and Moto Enthusiast!
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2017, 10:30:44 PM »
As humans we tend to pick up on and default to patterns, and I think because of this many people end up doing things which can be considered racist or sexist without really even thinking about it.  That being said, I think it's really easy to blow this stuff out of proportion.

Take casual racism/prejudice.  They say not to judge a book by it's cover, but how many people here, for example, when crossing paths with a black man with facial tattoos, a tank-top, his pants slung low, and a wide-stepping slow walk would be cautious or defensive on sight?  This person could be a community leader who volunteers at a homeless shelter every weekend, goes to church, and raises an honest living to support his children and his wife of 10 years, to whom he's been faithful, but at the end of the day if he looks like a thug people are probably going to see him as one.  Not saying it's right, I'm saying it happens and it's natural based on cultural norms.  After all, we get these assumptions from somewhere, they aren't just arbitrary.  Someone crosses the street to avoid a "thug", the reality might not be as simple as "he's racist."  A racist person might see ANY black man as a gangster, not just the one looking the part, while an average person might jump to the conclusion based on more specific evidence.  Many images in the news and movies, for example, will portray the facial tattoos and the low-pants as associated with prison culture, and now the correlation is made, so when one sees it in person they draw on those correlations and now it alters that person's behavior, for good or for ill.

So when it comes to sexism, lets say you work at Lowes and a 5'3" small woman wearing makeup, heels, and a dress comes around the corner browsing the power-tools, your first instinct is likely going to be that she's looking for an angle-grinder or whatever for her husband/boyfriend/father/brother/significant-other/etc.
Lets reverse it, if she comes in wearing jeans, a cotton t-shirt, is covered in rust and oil stains, and her hands are dirty, would you assume she needs something for her own use?  Likely.  It's maybe not a negative assumption anymore, but it's still an assumption.  Once again, we make these claims based on appearances and experiences, what we see and what we are used to seeing.  A woman all dressed up usually isn't the first thing we think of when it comes to someone who knows fabrication, so is it sexist to assume the well dressed woman doesn't know power tools?  Sure, it still is, but there is some basis in reality here.  And once again this person may not particularly be sexist even though they jumped to a sexist conclusion, however a truly sexist person might see the woman covered in garage filth and STILL assume that she's getting a tool for her man.


So I'd make the argument that the feeling or thought is natural, but it's what we DO with the feeling or thought that makes the person.  The "thug", do you immediately call 911 on the suspicion that he is a gangster and about to commit a crime?  Of course not, you go on about your business, to do otherwise would be racist/prejudiced.  The woman, do you go up to her and immediately talk to her like she doesn't know a drill from a mallet?  Of course not, that would be totally sexist.

I agree with qcbaker about people being offended.  If you offend someone, it's done.  You can't "take it back" or explain your way out of it, or wave it off as "if they had a spine it wouldn't be such a big deal."  The only way to avoid the offense is to not be offensive in the first place.  That being said, I think in recent times it's become commonplace to raise a stink about every little comment that can be even remotely negative, and at some point you just have to shake your head and tell the person to go grow a spine, LOL!  I know that seems super contradictory...
Being talked to derogatively is of course not to be tolerated, but in my Lowes example if the employee asked the woman straight away "Are you looking for a gift for someone?" should the woman immediately feel belittled?  I think no.  It may have been sexist by definition, but was it maliciously sexist?  Maybe that's for the public to decide...
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 10:35:42 PM by Watcher »
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

Offline yamahonkawazuki

  • Resident MonoPod
  • Motorcycle God!
  • ******
  • Posts: 93946
  • Karma: +73/-0
  • -Dum spiro spero (while i breathe, i hope)
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2017, 12:02:32 AM »
that one above ties the monster multiquote record here.
Aaron
Jan 14 2010 0310 I miss you mom
Vielen dank Patrick. Vielen dank
".
A proud Mormon
"if you come in with the bottom of your cast black,
neither one of us will be happy"- Alan Silverman MD

Offline mr72

  • MotoGP Racer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Karma: +48/-0
  • Musician, Engineer, Sci-Fi Author
    • Josh's Books
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2017, 07:35:49 AM »
lets say you work at Lowes and a 5'3" small woman wearing makeup, heels, and a dress comes around the corner browsing the power-tools, your first instinct is likely going to be that she's looking for an angle-grinder or whatever for her husband/boyfriend/father/brother/significant-other/etc.
Lets reverse it, if she comes in wearing jeans, a cotton t-shirt, is covered in rust and oil stains, and her hands are dirty, would you assume she needs something for her own use?  Likely.  It's maybe not a negative assumption anymore, but it's still an assumption.  Once again, we make these claims based on appearances and experiences, what we see and what we are used to seeing.  A woman all dressed up usually isn't the first thing we think of when it comes to someone who knows fabrication, so is it sexist to assume the well dressed woman doesn't know power tools?  Sure, it still is, but there is some basis in reality here.

Thanks for making this point.

I'd say that 99% of the time, the "sexist" assumption is correct. That 1% o the time when the female home machinist happens to stop by Lowes on the way to her cousin's wedding to pick up an angle grinder she will need when she gets home, that woman probably won't be offended by this because she knows good and well that she is out of character. If she acts offended it's because she was trying to get offended. IMHO. Again, 99% of the time. There's always the exception.

OTOH I'm not sure this really is absolutely "sexist". Take gender out of it. If you work at Lowes and a 6'3" man comes in wearing makeup, heels, and a dress to look at angle grinders, you also are going to assume he is not the eventual consumer of the angle grinder. It's because his outward appearance, which was his choice, is an indicator of his cultural choices beyond the obvious. It would be sexist if you assume the man is buying it for himself in spite of his makeup, heels and dress, while a woman dressed the same would be buying it for a man.

Think about it the other way around: let's say Mike Rowe goes into Victoria's Secret, wearing a worn ball cap, slightly dirty flannel shirt, stained jeans and work boots. When he is looking at lingerie, it's perfectly safe to assume he's buying this for his wife or girlfriend, right? Why is THAT not sexist but it's sexist to figure the woman in Watcher's example is buying an angle grinder for a man? It's because men generally (again, there are exceptions...) are not consumers of lingerie for themselves, and everyone knows it, and nobody gets offended by this statistical reality. I think by qcbaker's definition (from M-W) it's sexist to think Mike's not buying lingerie for himself. And in that case, it means 'sexist' really doesn't mean anything, because it means everything. It means people can't be sensitive to obvious outward signs and informed by their own life's experience in their interaction with other people. We all have to treat everyone like they are a robot, and like we also are robots.

Of course I was just making the point that for the offendee, you may live a happier life if you can make peace with the fact that many people will maybe treat you in a way easily interpreted as 'sexist' (or maybe technically defined as 'sexist' but still normal) while having no malicious intent, and if you can adjust your own reaction so that it becomes acceptable, your life will be more easily lived with others around you. But to expect the entire world to change in your lifetime is a fool's errand. This, regardless of gender or whatever other 'class' you might be in that would entitle you to take offense.

qcbaker unfortunately personalized what was an objective discussion and instead suggested that I personally am a sexist even though he has no evidence of such from my own life. I disagree about the definition of 'sexism'. I also disagree that it's desirable to eradicate whatever passive/unintentional/etc. unwilling 'sexism' from our society because in 99% of cases it is valid assumption that makes communication and interaction between people easier. And I also disagree that just because many women choose not to engage in motorcycling that it somehow indicates a problem with male motorcyclists. That's not to say that individual people may indeed be (intentionally) sexist, and that their individual behavior likely needs changing. But I can't contribute to a corporate change because it's not my behavior that needs changing. A non-sexist overcorrecting doesn't cancel out a sexist who does not correct. And it does no good to further whatever good will we all have towards better interaction between the sexes for us to punish honestly well-meaning people (male or female!) for inadvertent offenses that they are unable to detect or control.

So ladies, if you work at Cycle Gear and I am in there shopping on the pink-jackets rack, it's safe to assume I am shopping for my wife and I would really appreciate your insight as a knowledgeable female motorcyclist. Go ahead and treat me with sexism. It will save me a lot of explaining. I think this applies to 99% of the guys in the motorcycling "community". And I think to fit in to the motorcycling community, women are going to have to understand that it's ok to reciprocate this attitude... if you're shopping the pink jackets at Watcher's Cycle Gear, he's not being a sexist to assume you might be shopping for yourself, and if you avoid that rack and shop the guy's jackets, give him a break if he thinks you might be buying for a man in your life, and just correct him if he's wrong and you actually want to buy a Bilt Cafe Racer jacket in men's size 38 for yourself. He's not trying to offend you, he's just doing his best to be helpful.

IMHO. :)

Offline pliskin

  • Rick Flair's fluff boy
  • World Supersport Racer
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
  • Karma: +17/-0
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2017, 09:27:27 PM »
As humans we tend to pick up on and default to patterns, and I think because of this many people end up doing things which can be considered racist or sexist without really even thinking about it.  That being said, I think it's really easy to blow this stuff out of proportion.

Take casual racism/prejudice.  They say not to judge a book by it's cover, but how many people here, for example, when crossing paths with a black man with facial tattoos, a tank-top, his pants slung low, and a wide-stepping slow walk would be cautious or defensive on sight?  This person could be a community leader who volunteers at a homeless shelter every weekend, goes to church, and raises an honest living to support his children and his wife of 10 years, to whom he's been faithful, but at the end of the day if he looks like a thug people are probably going to see him as one.  Not saying it's right, I'm saying it happens and it's natural based on cultural norms.  After all, we get these assumptions from somewhere, they aren't just arbitrary.  Someone crosses the street to avoid a "thug", the reality might not be as simple as "he's racist."  A racist person might see ANY black man as a gangster, not just the one looking the part, while an average person might jump to the conclusion based on more specific evidence.  Many images in the news and movies, for example, will portray the facial tattoos and the low-pants as associated with prison culture, and now the correlation is made, so when one sees it in person they draw on those correlations and now it alters that person's behavior, for good or for ill.

So when it comes to sexism, lets say you work at Lowes and a 5'3" small woman wearing makeup, heels, and a dress comes around the corner browsing the power-tools, your first instinct is likely going to be that she's looking for an angle-grinder or whatever for her husband/boyfriend/father/brother/significant-other/etc.
Lets reverse it, if she comes in wearing jeans, a cotton t-shirt, is covered in rust and oil stains, and her hands are dirty, would you assume she needs something for her own use?  Likely.  It's maybe not a negative assumption anymore, but it's still an assumption.  Once again, we make these claims based on appearances and experiences, what we see and what we are used to seeing.  A woman all dressed up usually isn't the first thing we think of when it comes to someone who knows fabrication, so is it sexist to assume the well dressed woman doesn't know power tools?  Sure, it still is, but there is some basis in reality here.  And once again this person may not particularly be sexist even though they jumped to a sexist conclusion, however a truly sexist person might see the woman covered in garage filth and STILL assume that she's getting a tool for her man.


So I'd make the argument that the feeling or thought is natural, but it's what we DO with the feeling or thought that makes the person.  The "thug", do you immediately call 911 on the suspicion that he is a gangster and about to commit a crime?  Of course not, you go on about your business, to do otherwise would be racist/prejudiced.  The woman, do you go up to her and immediately talk to her like she doesn't know a drill from a mallet?  Of course not, that would be totally sexist.

I agree with qcbaker about people being offended.  If you offend someone, it's done.  You can't "take it back" or explain your way out of it, or wave it off as "if they had a spine it wouldn't be such a big deal."  The only way to avoid the offense is to not be offensive in the first place.  That being said, I think in recent times it's become commonplace to raise a stink about every little comment that can be even remotely negative, and at some point you just have to shake your head and tell the person to go grow a spine, LOL!  I know that seems super contradictory...
Being talked to derogatively is of course not to be tolerated, but in my Lowes example if the employee asked the woman straight away "Are you looking for a gift for someone?" should the woman immediately feel belittled?  I think no.  It may have been sexist by definition, but was it maliciously sexist?  Maybe that's for the public to decide...
You my friend are an absolute genius. You put into words what I only whish I could have. Well said. You just explained the whole thing. Reading it was like I was talking to myself.




« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 09:30:29 PM by pliskin »
Why are you looking here?

Offline qcbaker

  • World Supersport Racer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Karma: +13/-0
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2017, 03:06:51 PM »
As humans we tend to pick up on and default to patterns, and I think because of this many people end up doing things which can be considered racist or sexist without really even thinking about it. That being said, I think it's really easy to blow this stuff out of proportion.

Take casual racism/prejudice.  They say not to judge a book by it's cover, but how many people here, for example, when crossing paths with a black man with facial tattoos, a tank-top, his pants slung low, and a wide-stepping slow walk would be cautious or defensive on sight?  This person could be a community leader who volunteers at a homeless shelter every weekend, goes to church, and raises an honest living to support his children and his wife of 10 years, to whom he's been faithful, but at the end of the day if he looks like a thug people are probably going to see him as one.  Not saying it's right, I'm saying it happens and it's natural based on cultural norms.  After all, we get these assumptions from somewhere, they aren't just arbitrary.  Someone crosses the street to avoid a "thug", the reality might not be as simple as "he's racist."  A racist person might see ANY black man as a gangster, not just the one looking the part, while an average person might jump to the conclusion based on more specific evidence.  Many images in the news and movies, for example, will portray the facial tattoos and the low-pants as associated with prison culture, and now the correlation is made, so when one sees it in person they draw on those correlations and now it alters that person's behavior, for good or for ill.

So when it comes to sexism, lets say you work at Lowes and a 5'3" small woman wearing makeup, heels, and a dress comes around the corner browsing the power-tools, your first instinct is likely going to be that she's looking for an angle-grinder or whatever for her husband/boyfriend/father/brother/significant-other/etc.
Lets reverse it, if she comes in wearing jeans, a cotton t-shirt, is covered in rust and oil stains, and her hands are dirty, would you assume she needs something for her own use?  Likely.  It's maybe not a negative assumption anymore, but it's still an assumption.  Once again, we make these claims based on appearances and experiences, what we see and what we are used to seeing.  A woman all dressed up usually isn't the first thing we think of when it comes to someone who knows fabrication, so is it sexist to assume the well dressed woman doesn't know power tools?  Sure, it still is, but there is some basis in reality here.  And once again this person may not particularly be sexist even though they jumped to a sexist conclusion, however a truly sexist person might see the woman covered in garage filth and STILL assume that she's getting a tool for her man.

So I'd make the argument that the feeling or thought is natural, but it's what we DO with the feeling or thought that makes the person.  The "thug", do you immediately call 911 on the suspicion that he is a gangster and about to commit a crime?  Of course not, you go on about your business, to do otherwise would be racist/prejudiced.  The woman, do you go up to her and immediately talk to her like she doesn't know a drill from a mallet?  Of course not, that would be totally sexist.

I agree with qcbaker about people being offended.  If you offend someone, it's done.  You can't "take it back" or explain your way out of it, or wave it off as "if they had a spine it wouldn't be such a big deal."  The only way to avoid the offense is to not be offensive in the first place.  That being said, I think in recent times it's become commonplace to raise a stink about every little comment that can be even remotely negative, and at some point you just have to shake your head and tell the person to go grow a spine, LOL!  I know that seems super contradictory...
Being talked to derogatively is of course not to be tolerated, but in my Lowes example if the employee asked the woman straight away "Are you looking for a gift for someone?" should the woman immediately feel belittled?  I think no.  It may have been sexist by definition, but was it maliciously sexist?  Maybe that's for the public to decide...

You bring up some very good points. Everyone has prejudices that they can't really be blamed for holding. Everyone has sexist/racist/etc. thoughts every time they see someone they don't know. Choosing to act upon them is what really matters. In the case of sexism, choosing to express sexist thoughts is a sexist act. So, I would consider a person who does that to be a sexist. But, because it wasn't, to use your phrasing, "maliciously sexist", I wouldn't consider them a bad person for it. "Malicious sexism" would be misogyny. Sexism is not necessarily misogyny. Things that are sexist by definition are not always misogynist, and I think I should have clarified that earlier, because (as I have addressed below in my reply to him) I think that mr72 is under the impression that I was accusing him (and others that share is viewpoint) of being a misogynist.

qcbaker unfortunately personalized what was an objective discussion and instead suggested that I personally am a sexist even though he has no evidence of such from my own life.

I'm not "personalizing" anything. I do have evidence that you yourself are a little bit sexist. The attitude you hold, based on your posts in this thread suggests that you are a bit sexist. I even said don't mean it as a personal insult, so if my stating that your behavior was sexist makes you mad, you're the one personalizing. Also, see how you can't simply choose to not be offended by what I said? If I hurt your feelings by pointing out how your behavior was sexist, I apologize. Based on what you sadi you wanted ("an honest, unemotional conversation"), I figured you would understand that I wasn't trying to insult you. Obviously, I was incorrect, and for that mistake, I apologize.

Everyone holds prejudices that makes them at least a little bit sexist. Like Watcher alluded to, it's what you do with those feelings that really matters. Like I said earlier, what you seem to think I'm accusing you of is being a misogynist. Which, for the record, I don't believe you are.

Quote
I disagree about the definition of 'sexism'.

Again, I think you're confusing sexism with misogyny. They're two different things.

Quote
I also disagree that it's desirable to eradicate whatever passive/unintentional/etc. unwilling 'sexism' from our society because in 99% of cases it is valid assumption that makes communication and interaction between people easier.

So your opinion is that prejudices are okay. Alright, I guess. At this point, I won't try to convince you otherwise.

Quote
And I also disagree that just because many women choose not to engage in motorcycling that it somehow indicates a problem with male motorcyclists.

I never said that it did, not in and of itself anyway. But, when you ask the question "Why aren't more women interested in motorcycling?", the behavior of male motorcyclists is part of the answer. It's not the whole story, IMO, but it's a big part of it. If you don't think that sexist behavior among male motorcyclists is causing this discrepancy in participation, why do you think it is that women don't choose to engage in motorcycling at the same rates that men do?

Quote
That's not to say that individual people may indeed be (intentionally) sexist, and that their individual behavior likely needs changing. But I can't contribute to a corporate change because it's not my behavior that needs changing.

Just because your sexism is unintentional doesn't mean it doesn't need changing.

Quote
A non-sexist overcorrecting doesn't cancel out a sexist who does not correct. And it does no good to further whatever good will we all have towards better interaction between the sexes for us to punish honestly well-meaning people (male or female!) for inadvertent offenses that they are unable to detect or control.

It may be difficult to do, but it is possible to detect when you do sexist things and attempt to do them less.

Offline Bluesmudge

  • MotoGP Racer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2263
  • Karma: +44/-0
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2017, 04:05:57 PM »
As humans we tend to pick up on and default to patterns, and I think because of this many people end up doing things which can be considered racist or sexist without really even thinking about it.  That being said, I think it's really easy to blow this stuff out of proportion.

Take casual racism/prejudice.  They say not to judge a book by it's cover, but how many people here, for example, when crossing paths with a black man with facial tattoos, a tank-top, his pants slung low, and a wide-stepping slow walk would be cautious or defensive on sight?  This person could be a community leader who volunteers at a homeless shelter every weekend, goes to church, and raises an honest living to support his children and his wife of 10 years, to whom he's been faithful, but at the end of the day if he looks like a thug people are probably going to see him as one.  Not saying it's right, I'm saying it happens and it's natural based on cultural norms.  After all, we get these assumptions from somewhere, they aren't just arbitrary.  Someone crosses the street to avoid a "thug", the reality might not be as simple as "he's racist."  A racist person might see ANY black man as a gangster, not just the one looking the part, while an average person might jump to the conclusion based on more specific evidence.  Many images in the news and movies, for example, will portray the facial tattoos and the low-pants as associated with prison culture, and now the correlation is made, so when one sees it in person they draw on those correlations and now it alters that person's behavior, for good or for ill.

So when it comes to sexism, lets say you work at Lowes and a 5'3" small woman wearing makeup, heels, and a dress comes around the corner browsing the power-tools, your first instinct is likely going to be that she's looking for an angle-grinder or whatever for her husband/boyfriend/father/brother/significant-other/etc.
Lets reverse it, if she comes in wearing jeans, a cotton t-shirt, is covered in rust and oil stains, and her hands are dirty, would you assume she needs something for her own use?  Likely.  It's maybe not a negative assumption anymore, but it's still an assumption.  Once again, we make these claims based on appearances and experiences, what we see and what we are used to seeing.  A woman all dressed up usually isn't the first thing we think of when it comes to someone who knows fabrication, so is it sexist to assume the well dressed woman doesn't know power tools?  Sure, it still is, but there is some basis in reality here.  And once again this person may not particularly be sexist even though they jumped to a sexist conclusion, however a truly sexist person might see the woman covered in garage filth and STILL assume that she's getting a tool for her man.


So I'd make the argument that the feeling or thought is natural, but it's what we DO with the feeling or thought that makes the person.  The "thug", do you immediately call 911 on the suspicion that he is a gangster and about to commit a crime?  Of course not, you go on about your business, to do otherwise would be racist/prejudiced.  The woman, do you go up to her and immediately talk to her like she doesn't know a drill from a mallet?  Of course not, that would be totally sexist.

I agree with qcbaker about people being offended.  If you offend someone, it's done.  You can't "take it back" or explain your way out of it, or wave it off as "if they had a spine it wouldn't be such a big deal."  The only way to avoid the offense is to not be offensive in the first place.  That being said, I think in recent times it's become commonplace to raise a stink about every little comment that can be even remotely negative, and at some point you just have to shake your head and tell the person to go grow a spine, LOL!  I know that seems super contradictory...
Being talked to derogatively is of course not to be tolerated, but in my Lowes example if the employee asked the woman straight away "Are you looking for a gift for someone?" should the woman immediately feel belittled?  I think no.  It may have been sexist by definition, but was it maliciously sexist?  Maybe that's for the public to decide...

Well said. Actions are much more important than what goes on inside your head.
We all have internal biases, stereotypes, and prejudices. The best thing to do is acknowledge that fact and and try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That is, attempt to maintain a neutral opinion of someone until you have enough information to accurately come to conclusions about the person.

I think that, if you go through life jumping to conclusions about people and feeling comfortable making comments based on those conclusions, you are destined to make people uncomfortable (often without your knowledge). If you want to take that gamble then that is your individual choice but I can't see why you would choose the riskier option. From a purely rational/logical point of view we should try and offend as few people as possible. You never know what business deal or personal advancement your are going to miss out on because you offended someone by jumping to conclusions about their lifestyle. The Victoria's Secret salesperson approaching Mike Rowe in the lingerie store would be just as helpful and much less likely to offend by asking, "can I help you find anything?" rather than the riskier, "are you looking for something for your Wife?"

Offline The Buddha

  • The guru Ba-moo-derator
  • Administrator
  • Motorcycle God!
  • *****
  • Posts: 26820
  • Karma: +121/-0
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2017, 05:39:05 AM »
I have plenty of these similar experiences, including @ dealers that I don't know. They think I'm a clueless newb and don't believe me when I say I've got a bike, and even when I ride up on one they assume I'm clueless. I get all the usual, when're you gonna get a real bike, or how's that moped of yours etc etc.

Then, speaking of pinking and shrinking it - A few months ago when I last rode my GS, I got passed by a woman on a GSXR - that was lowered and pinked. What clued me in to the fact that it was a woman was the pinking and the lowering, and the fact that the poor bike was buried in - lets just call it "badonkadonk" ... she thought I was likely a chick too due to the small bike and slow speed - just about the speed limit, she tried to "lead" me, turned out - I was not willing or able to even keep up with her slower pace, so in a mile or 2, she ended up pretty much losing interest and leaving me.

Cool.
Buddha.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I run a business based on other people's junk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Offline mysho22

  • Local Club Racer
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2017, 10:42:54 PM »
I haven't been on this forum for more than a month, so I haven't had a big chance to be part of this conversation. From the way it was handled (especially by BlueSmudge and QCBaker (btw, thank you)), most of the points I would have made were made anyway. Rather than going back into every little part of this bigger conversation, I'll keep it short.

As a female rider, all I am asking is to be treated like any other person on a bike. I ask any person with a helmet what they ride. Female riders are more common than one might think. Actually, about half of my riding community in my town is made of female riders. My town might have more female riders than many other places, but the female rider demographic is a fast growing one. Part of this is this "power to women" attitude that has been quoted several times in this thread. Next time you meet a woman with a helmet, even if she arrived on the back of someone else's bike, ask her what she rides. If she does not ride, ask her why? If she would like to in the future? Encouraging women to ride and welcoming women into our community is SO easy to do, and will help to further grow the number of female riders in our community. Assuming any woman carrying a helmet rides is a very small change to make, but you'll be surprised at how many women actually ride or gain more interest in riding their own bike because of this simple encouragement.

As a personal example of this, when I was still riding on the back of my partner's bike before I had any interest riding my own, we went on a group ride. He paid the entry fee for this club sponsored charity ride, and the man in charge of taking our money and signing us in asked immediately if I was a passenger. I was used to this. The club member woman beside him, however, gave him a fierce glare and said something along the lines, "How dare you assume she is on the back, just because she's a girl?" before turning to me and asking if I was riding today. It was awesome. I told her that I was riding on the back that day, but that was one of the moments that most encouraged me to start riding on my own. That moment changed my idea of riding from, "I can't do it" to "maybe I can try".

What I am asking is very simple. Just treat me, and all female riders, like we are any other rider on the street. Assume we ride, and assume we probably know something about our own bikes. If we don't understand something, we'll ask. Or we'll google it. One of the most frustrating things about this community is meeting people on bikes (often men, as was pointed out previously men are still the majority [Side note: I'm working on changing this B) ]) and immediately having men twice my age describing how hawt it is that I ride, and congratulating me for simple tasks. Its patronizing.

Final thing. If you're talking to a female rider, try to avoid using words describing our appearance or how "hot it is" we ride. If you wouldn't say it to a male rider who pulled up on my bike, don't say it to me. It's just unnecessary.
Of the Motorcycles and Misfits podcast

Offline Joolstacho

  • AMA Superbike Racer
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • www.gigarboxblues.com.au
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2017, 04:46:12 PM »
Much of what's being said in this topic is valid. But I just want to chuck in this thought.
In the past few years (it could be a generational thing) we are being constantly harangued by certain pressure groups who think that, unless we conform to their ways, that we should be 'corrected'.

The propaganda on public broadcasting radio in Australia and UK World Service is fearsome. The pressure to conform is greatly exacerbated by the social media groupthink syndrome.
 
The very BEST thing about human beings is the very thing that these people complain about... Our diversity, our differences, and yes, even our prejudices.
Don't have the arrogance to assume that everyone else must live by YOUR rules, because EVERYONE can be offensive, -it's just a matter of 'where you're coming from'.

As long as no actual harm (as opposed to perceived harm) is done, then just get over it. There's nothing so special about 'you' that dictates that we should all creep around complying with YOUR attitudes.

Let us avoid the push for dumbing-down compliance and conformity eh?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 04:50:00 PM by Joolstacho »
Beam me up Scottie....

Offline Bluesmudge

  • MotoGP Racer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2263
  • Karma: +44/-0
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2018, 12:29:54 PM »
 
The very BEST thing about human beings is the very thing that these people complain about... Our diversity, our differences, and yes, even our prejudices.


You are right, it must be generational thing, because I can't understand how you can think that prejudice is one of the best things about being human. The world can't become a better place when making negative assumptions about other people is considered to be a good thing.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2018, 12:46:59 PM by Bluesmudge »

Offline Joolstacho

  • AMA Superbike Racer
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • www.gigarboxblues.com.au
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2018, 03:31:33 PM »
So you think that people who are driven by greed and selfishness should be treated and thought of the same as generous helpful people?
So you think that murderous violent people should be treated and thought of the same as considerate gentle people?
This is the thing... It is RIGHT to be prejudiced against some people.
You are making the assumption that all prejudice is bad. Wrong. More prejudice against bad people is just what we need to make the world a "better place".
Beam me up Scottie....

Offline Bluesmudge

  • MotoGP Racer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2263
  • Karma: +44/-0
Re: #LadyRiderProblems
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2018, 09:43:38 PM »
Ok, but then you are making an argument that is far outside the scope of this thread. Nobody was trying to argue against anything related to what you are talking about. That is,  unless you think that treating women with the same respect you give men is equivalent to interacting with convicted murderers.

If someone is driven by greed and selfishness, (which is pretty much everyone to some degree as it is a necessary assumption of supply and demand economics) and I have evidence to that fact, then I am likely going to avoid interacting with that person or, if they force the situation, do whatever is necessary to limit their negative impact on my life.

The word prejudice is generally used to imply a negative bias or an opinion that is not based on actual facts or experience. So yes, it may be more ok to be prejudice against convicted criminals if that's what makes you feel good, but you would be better off to have a fully formed opinion of a person before you treat them in a negative way. In modern society we should be leaving the quid pro quo punishments to the justice system. All people are a product of circumstance, there is no such thing as a "bad" person. It's not your job to decide who should be treated poorly.

Start every interaction with a new person with a blank slate. You don't know anything about them, so be nice until a given a reason not to be. If you think a person's sex, race, or appearance gives you enough information to immediately make assumptions about them, you are wrong.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2018, 10:03:49 PM by Bluesmudge »

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk