Aapjes wrote:No, it's not. If that was true, no marginal sport would ever grow and no big sport would ever decline. But it does happen in real life and based on many factors. Women cycling could try to make the sport more interesting. Why not break with the UCI and shake things up with on-bike camera's and special formats? Be the crazy league that is much more fun. In men's cycling, the importance of the TdF holds people back since no one can afford to miss out on the TdF. I have little sympathy for people who cry that other people should spend money on them, but refuse to be innovative themselves.
Setting up new sports federations isn't exactly a walk in the park. Why should women have to set up a new federation anyway? The fact that you are suggesting that they do this implies that the UCI are doing an inadequate job with women's cycling as is and that therefore there is structural sexism at the UCI.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the only thing that determines a sport's popularity is its exposure, but there is definitely a cyclical component. Of course there's a bit of a chicken and egg situation here - what comes first, the fans or the coverage, but better coverage vastly increases the potential fan base.
The fact is that when TV coverage of sports began, society in general was far more sexist than it is now. There was much less acceptance of the idea of female sportspeople when that initial wave of televised sport occurred, so it's hard to say that women's sport has ever been competing on level ground. When sport first broke onto television it was men's sport that was most prominent and since then the fans-coverage cycle has perpetuated that situation.
Furthermore, I wonder how this magical marketing support works. Why would a big TV network suddenly show women cycling when they see minimal interest in viewers? Should they be given a big bag of money for it (which is completely different from male cycling exposure, so no equality there)? What women cycling could also do is what other marginal (male and female) sports do, get strong support in the local community, build up a base and then go big. Women soccer in the US is on this path and I think it is far more likely to be successful than a top-down approach.
Well ones does not have to detail the exact proposal that will be put forward to a TV network in order to say that it is broadly a good idea. Men's cycling isn't even (generally) on big TV networks. Perhaps the UCI could look at increasing professionalism of women's cycling in order to reduce the number of part-timers and thereby make weekday races more widely viable. Most sports networks are pretty barren on weekday afternoons, so the events could be marketed at that slot, perhaps. That is just one idea. The fact is that the UCI spends an awful lot of time, money and effort promoting men's cycling, so they must feel that not only does a governing body have a responsibility to promote its sport but also that they can be effective. The question then is: why do they not do the same for women?
That is just a straw man, I never said that existing rules/attitudes/etc shouldn't be changed. But what I object against in modern feminism is that different behavior by men and women is assumed to be always bad and caused by brainwashing by the 'patriarchy'. This ignores even the possibility that men and women may choose different based on biological difference (which obviously exist at some level) and even more importantly ignores freedom of choice. If people do things that make them happy, that do not hurt others and are not forced to do, then I find it hard to argue that this is some huge travesty.
Not actively seeking to change those attitudes was very much the thrust of your post though. Can you even name any modern feminist scholars? This is just absolute rubbish. Not all behavioural differences are patriarchal, nor are they biological. What that has to do with the UCI promoting women's racing, however, I do not know and how exactly it violates anyone's freedom of choice is an even bigger mystery.
If women choose not to support female sports (or sport in general, as is the case), then so be it. If most men don't see the appeal, too bad. On the list of travesties going on in the world this problem ranks very low IMO.
This right here is you directly arguing for the perpetuation of current attitudes. Yes this is a pretty minor problem in itself but to me it is part of a much wider problem. It also strikes me as a bit odd to come onto a thread about governance of women's cycling and then make the point that it's not a hugely important issue. I don't think anyone here is claiming that solving problems with women's cycling is more important than, say, ending the Syrian civil war, but this a cycling forum, not a Middle Eastern politics forum.
No athlete in any sport has a right to be paid for the sport and the overwhelming majority of athletes do not get paid (in male sports as well). If an athlete feels he is underpaid I fully support him/her trying to change it. Just don't guilt trip people and pretend you deserve it. I'm not whining that it's unfair that I don't get paid for my hobbies. If you can't find someone to pay you for what you want to do, then do what you can get paid for. That is capitalism.
When has anyone here said that women cyclists have a right to be paid? For someone who likes to throw the strawman accusation about you sure do construct a few yourself. The governing body have a responsibility towards the sport is not a "guilt trip". The point being made is that if the UCI were do to its job, there might be someone willing to pay female cyclists to do cycle.
Frankly I don't care about the nonsense coming out of women science aka anti-men non-sciences. Any and all research that I've seen coming out of that corner starts off with the assumption that men are evil and will never accept any other conclusion. What I'm talking about is what the normal people believe who call themselves feminists, in the media and forums. Fact is that the initial waves succeeded because they made solid arguments against discrimination and offered realistic steps for change, not because of a Marxist deconstruction of the current society. No normal person understands these far fetched theories and they will never influence enough people for real change. So who cares?
As for what normal people think, I see no realism in the third wave. They want special favors, not equal chances. They blame men for choices women make. They do not understand that with equal choices, further progression can only work if men are freed from bias, stereotypical expectations, etc at the same time as this is done for women. So success can only happen when men's rights and women's rights movements merge and work together for a common cause.
Absolute drivel. Not at all what feminism says, does or is even about. You clearly don't know much about it.
Thanks for the put down. Really mature. You also just demonstrated that you like to stereotype people, even though you know nothing about me.
A lot of self-righteous indignation, without actually attempting to prove him wrong.