Academics used to be so adept at infusing their work with feminist lies that only a red pill eye could spot the joins. In the past few years, it has become blatantly obvious that such pandering to feminist sensibilities has become heavy-handed to the point of absurdity. You can see the gaping maws where the feminist lies and the misandric potshots have just been shoved rough shod into increasingly unlikely topics.
The following article isn’t the most egregious example of such incongruity, but it ranks as one of the most ridiculous. If ever we needed more evidence that feminist ideology turns clever people into sycophantic buffoons, this is it.
“Transport Policy at the Crossroads: Travel to work in Australian capital cities, 1976-2011”, is the only census-based report ever undertaken in Australia about workplace commuting. Dr. Paul Mees and Dr. Lucy Groenhart, of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), should have delivered a (very) mildly diverting presentation of trends interpreted from the tabulated data.
That is what I thought I was reading, until I came to this obtuse and completely unsubstantiated assertion:
“Cycling receives much more attention from policy makers than walking, even though it plays a much smaller role in the journey to work: one possible reason is that cycling is by far the most male-dominated transport mode, reflecting the gender composition of the transport planning profession.”
These tenured boffins included a sub-section, titled “Transport modes and gender,” just to make sure that no-one missed the full implications of this jaw-dropping allegation. They opine:
“One possible reason for the attention paid to cycling is that cycling is by far the most male-dominated transport mode… reflecting the gender (and probably also socio-economic) makeup of transport planners and policy makers.”
The decision to spend millions of tax dollars on expensive cycling infrastructures in our main cities wasn’t a green initiative at all. Nor was it a widely-debated effort to promote health and fitness in the Australian community. No. It was a conspiracy by the Penis Club – otherwise known as The Patriarchy – to benefit Penises on Bikes.
The report also makes bizarre implications that men’s choices are somehow disadvantaging women. Using logic so tortured, that just looking at it made me squeamish, the writers suggest that women have to walk to work since all the roads have been selfishly taken over by men – who make up 57% of all motorists (hardly a whopping majority). There is no mention at all that women tend to live closer to their places of work – a fact so widely available that I’m not even going to bother linking to it.
I don’t know why the ratio of males-to-females who cycle to work is 77:23, but Ben Wilson, general manager of Bicycle Queensland made this sensible observation:
Considering how many studies have shown that women attach great importance to feeling safe, then, this explanation sounds much more reasonable and supported than the ludicrous claim made by these so-called academics.
My own personal experience informs me that most women are far more likely than men to mind arriving at their workplaces sweaty and disheveled. There is also the matter of helmet-shaped coiffes and the havoc that pedals wreak on Jimmy Choos, and I now wonder if that will be attended to with the advent of coiff shaped helmets. This, however, is a personal opinion which I would never dream of including in a widely-read academic report.
In fact, the sexist angle was the focal point of nearly every MSM reference to this report – which raises the question of whether or not the authors may have ‘sexed-up’ their dry little paper on purpose. After all, Dr. Paul Mees is no stranger to controversy. In fact, he’s quite the experienced provocateur.
The recommendations which conclude the report are typical examples of feminist pandering. Get a load of this:
“Policy-makers need to pay attention to the extremely restricted constituency that currently dominates the cycling ‘market’ (mainly male, inner city professionals), and develop measures to make cycling a viable option for a wider section of the community…”
Allow me to translate into red-pill-speak:
‘Policy makers should focus all of its money and attention on making cycling safe and easy for women.”
Perhaps we could provide police escorts, or force all traffic to stop whenever lady cyclists are spotted? Why not provide air-conditioned taxis and just put the bikes in the boots? That sounds like a lovely, safe option – comfy too. Who cares about viability when pandering to the “wider section of the community’ is our top priority?
So, there you have it. What should have been a dull- but-worthy report about modes of transport, somehow became yet another excuse for feminists to blame men for women’s choices. All it took were a few clumsy lines about Penises on Bikes. Surely this nonsense can’t continue for much longer.
[Disclaimer: Despite the overwhelming temptation of the author, no references to fish were used in the making of this article.]
- Why Gay Men Don’t Need Feminism – Part 4: Brotherhood - October 1, 2015
- Why gay men don’t need feminism – Part 3: Gay bashing - September 20, 2015
- Why gay men don’t need feminism – Part 2: The takeover - July 16, 2015
- Why gay men don’t need feminism – Part 1 challenging assumptions - July 13, 2015
- Out of the closet – again - April 7, 2015