Reply to comment

Jan. 19, 2017, 12:45 p.m. -  Pete Roggeman

#!markdown Just noticed that. I think your comments, as usual, are well thought-out and usually require two readings so I am able to pull all the marrow off the bone. Thanks, once again, for chiming in. Only one thing to add, because I really don't disagree with anything you said, but this is being missed by others if not yourself: the genesis of this article were thoughts and opinions expressed to Andrew by women. And it wasn't supposed to speak for all women, but certainly some of them. Actually make that two things. While I think we should be wholeheartedly celebrating efforts being made to promote and encourage women in biking, I don't think that that alone is an insulator from criticism or, let's mellow that word out a bit and just settle on 'critique'. Just creating a bike for women, or a program for women is simultaneously something to be celebrated AND something that should still be subject to some level of evaluation. That wasn't the intent here (sorry Andrew - I feel like I'm speaking on your behalf a bit too much) but I realize it could easily have been the interpretation. Here's an analogy: is it fair to subject a non-profit organization to criticism or hold it to a certain standard, even if it is universally thought of as doing good work? Obviously the answer is yes. The qualifier is - how strict a standard?

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.