Penises on bicycles (but no fish)

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:

Statistics show men will ride no matter what, but women will ride when they feel safe – they’re less likely to want to dice with trucks.

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.]

About andybob

Andy Bob frequently makes some of the most interesting comments on articles at A Voice for Men and occasionally appears on our front page. He is a long time Men's Human Rights Activist (MHRA), and as a gay man he takes a dim view of feminists who attempt to hijack gay issues.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Hf

    Good article, sir.

    It never ceases to amaze me the drivel that feminists come up with.

    • Laddition

      it’s their greatest skill

      feminism – no code, no honesty, no reality – revelling in victimhood since Eve opened her fat, stupid gob and bit the apple.

  • Steve_85

    What the fuck? Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

    More men eat toast than women! Toast is Patriarchal and is oppressing cereal. Toast must be made safer and more accessible to women!

    Get out. Get out, and make sure the door hits you on the way.

    Thank you Mr. Bob for treating this with the contempt that it deserves. I only wish it hadn’t made front page so people wouldn’t see it. The authors should be ashamed of their blatant propaganda.

    • Rick Westlake

      Toast is Patriarchal and is oppressing cereal?

      OMG, you mean Toast is …

      A CEREAL killer?!! (Oh, the slapstick irony.)

      • Steve_85

        The setup was good, and there’s the slam dunk! I was wondering if anyone would go there :)

        I am still just shocked at the level of stupid it must have taken to write the report quoted in the article. I mean how many sets of blinkers, in addition to your blatant bias, would you need in order to be able to write that rubbish?

        Do these people even live on the same planet as the rest of us?

        • JJ

          My question is where is the factory that makes these cookie cutter arrogant ideological mass provocateurs? So we can petition the local politicians and public to review their financial records. I am sure the cost benefit analysis will warrant a shut down of their ideologue making plant.

          Oh, that’s right, the universities. Is it only me that notices the areas that feminists cordon off are indispensable bastions of thought or service that are required; yet turned into a cancer we would all be better off without after they take over?

          For example; Obamacare is aimed at women to thank their single mother counterparts and lobbyist staff for their securing of two elections. Even though small businesses are starting to shut down in droves; the parade still marches on? Since it benefits them; they have no reason to look for why it might not be a good idea. How long do they think their march into insanity will go on unchecked by life?

          When feminists think of production, or anything for that matter, it revolves around their genitals and personal comfort. Any money to be made must be spent on those topics as well; or Lord have mercy we will never hear them stop bitching about it.

          The day I can’t wait for is when men everywhere look at them with disbelief in their eyes when women tell them to do anything. The male reaction of the future will be a one worded question: “And?”

          Women: “Some man just took my purse!”
          Men: “And?” Turns back to his beer.

          Women: “A man I went out on a date with hurt me!”
          Men: “And?” Turns back to what they were doing.

          Women: “Can you hold this door for me; I have four kids from four different men, and I can’t get the doors with all these WIC groceries?!”
          Men: “And?” Then walks away.

          The fact that men have (or I should say had after this article reaches the press) was a mere 57% “whopping” disparity of male bicyclists to the female variety is asinine. Yet the fact feminists purport this nonsense is only outdone by the silence of all the men it affects.

          The shame is lost on us all; and we still don’t have enough to do anything about it………yet. The word “yet” is the reason for all these articles we see them make. We don’t have the power “YET!”

          YET, we are getting there; and they obviously see it. That is the sole explanation for all their acts these last hundred years. They know we are going to get free of them; and the loss of the old traditional marriage set is way more scary to them; then it is to us.

          When we have no reason to stay with a woman at all; 14th century Italy is going to be a real example of what many women may have to look forward to:

          Whenever conquering nations get bloated; things like women’s rights, and all other sorts of social luxuries (welfare for example) get instituted as a way to keep an idle populace happy and content. Until the money runs out; and the cold, harsh reality of life sets in.

          Prostitution is something that was instituted for a measure of population control and personal safety. It is difficult to find; yet necessary to understand. In no way is it PC in our society today. Your average woman will not want to hear it. Yet I have talked with these women (no, not partaking of their festivities); and in my travels I met many who were well educated. Yet there was no work!

          When work is scarce and state funded health care is not an option in their nation; businesses only hire males. This is why feminists are so dire in their need to keep women working at all costs. They want all the bastions that a prostitute has; without all the fringe work details and habits.

          Since they have so devastated such a large swath of Western Males to the concept of marriage; they had better hope these feminists are defeated. If anything even remotely close to a dark age comes back; I honestly see brothels in many of these women’s future. Their lack of outrage against this gender war themselves is an indictment to an extreme lack of foresight; or utter ignorance.

          Historically, the sort of economy we have enjoyed since VJ day post WW2 is an anomaly unique to the age of modern world warfare. It took Germany and Japan 30 years, and with our long term political help and financial aid, to become the trading partners they are now.

          These countries still engage in prostitution.

          The fact that these women are continuing to act like these “educated professionals” imply is very dangerous. Not that any feminist will listen. Our economy is already in the tank. If our Great Depression was any indication; then our women could be in for bad times.

          I will not necessarily count on modern technology to cure human self centeredness. Like a petulant child, we always want what we want; when we want it. Western Women now have laws sheltering them from the consequences of their actions.

          It will not last forever!

          • Steve_85

            Well they do say that the opposite to love is not hate, it is indifference. I’m already there. I wouldn’t have said, ‘and?’ though, I would have said, ‘so what?’ The meaning is the same.

            Feminism: Killing the cow to get a little bit of extra milk today.

        • JJ

          Fair point. “And?”=”So What?”

          Same attitude. It is not what I want, but like the old story goes when you “cry wolf” one too many times; eventually, no one comes to save you.

          It is even worse when all those you cried wolf against are the very townspeople you claim should rescue you.

          Feminism=Stupid, and should not be allowed to breed.

  • Lucian Vâlsan

    I want to make an intelligent comment but I can not stop myself from facepalming and facedesking.

    Jesus fucking Christ!

    • Alphabeta Supe


      Brilliant. A much-needed upgrade from “facepalming”, given the escalating idiocy of the feminist sycophant but, dear God, let it stop there.

      • Rick Westlake

        I came close to face-desking, too, but the keyboard got in my waytuhjgkfnbvmlo987655rffvbgtryu…

    • scatmaster
    • malcolm

      No facedesking.
      It’s a symbol of female oppression.

  • Zerbu

    More men use bicycles than women? PATRIARCHY! Bicycles need to be changed to cater to women, or if that can’t be done, abolished!

    That pretty much sums up the attitude feminists have when men use something more than women. When the reverse is true, they complain that the company is “neglecting the majority of users”. They’re just never satisfied.

  • Laddition

    ‘Policy makers should focus all of its money and attention on making cycling safe and easy for women.’

    Yes indeedy – all roads should be down hill in both directions. Uphill is patriarchal – you diabolical penis owning bastids

    Feminism – promoting elitism in stupidity since whenever

    • Laddition

      Oh, but uphill in both directions for menz (the bastids)

      Anybody claiming that that isn’t possible is a patriarchal bastard

  • Bombay

    I think they missed the major reason women do not ride a bike to work. They cannot put on their makeup as they can when driving.

  • Kimski

    Wouldn’t wrapping women in cotton, storing them in big canisters and feeding them intravenously, while keeping their minds occupied with 24/7 daytime TV, seem like a more obvious safe solution?

    That way the rest of the world can save a whole lot of money, while going about their daily business of taking chances riding bikes.

    Is it just me or is there a distinct odeur of rotting fish coming from that report?
    There, I said it..

    • Alphabeta Supe

      A woman needs a man like a fish needs lemon.

      • Kimski

        Please notice how no woman were placed in harm’s way while making that video.

        As a matter of fact, there’s not a single one around due to the presence of bicycles.

  • Bombay

    Do the OZ feminists have a push on to close skate parks and basketball courts? These are money spent mostly on the wrong gender as well.

    • Steve_85

      Shut up! Don’t give them ideas!

  • Aimee McGee

    As a female cyclist, I can tell him the number 1 reason women cycle to commute less than men…they were discouraged by family buying in to safety culture and discouraged from cycling in their early to mid teens, at the time when you develop the majority of your road sense.
    My parents gave me a simple option. I could save my bus money as pocket money if I cycled or walked to school and back. If I wanted transport for summer jobs, it was up to me to work that out. Any kiwis familiar with state highway 8 will know that it is not a simple task to cycle 8km to where you are picking fruit…I have a nice knee scar from chosing a gravel bank over being splatter by a stupid idiot tourist in a campervan. The boss gave me a lift home that day after he did first aid on my knee, and said I could be in the pack house for a week if I could get to work. My parents said the cycling had to continue or I would be too scared to restart. So I cycled.
    I wish I could cycle commute more but often need to go to other venues in my day.

  • napocapo69

    Not to mention that those men by rinding the bicycles, in the rare occasions where they are not hunting for a prey, they are techniclaly cheating their wives …

  • Near Earth Object

    “Considering how many studies have shown that women attach great importance to feeling safe…”

    More women ARE safe, than claim to FEEL unsafe!

    One of the greatest feminist-crimes is how they have terrified members of their own gender.
    Another is, how feminists have unethically utilized the notion of personal safety to man-ipulate their environments to get their infantile need states met [I don’t like (fill in the blank), I don’t feel safe].

    Good write, Andy Bob.

    I don’t know what’s crazier …
    feminists, or the things they think, and then talk about.

  • thefeministmra

    I was tempted to make a joke about spending too much money on urinals and how we need to make women feel better about using toilets… but then I realized they actually are doing that and writing laws to govern how men need to use the bathroom… then it was no longer funny… then I realized that peeing on the toilet seats would then be considered a defiant act toward authority… and women dig bad boys… then I laughed again.

  • August Løvenskiolds

    The brutal influence of patriarchy on female cyclists is most glaringly played out in the rape culture inspired “banana seat” (or “saddle”). The exaltation of harsh penile imagery of bananas, the focus on the vulnerable vulva objectified by the crass term “seat”, and the shameful slurs against women’s healthy curves encapsulated by “saddle”, combine to form an evil trinity of oppression that robs women of their dignity and rights.

    If men really cared at all about women, they would be legislating bicycle chairs with build-in female-friendly options including vibrators, bidets, and automatic menstral extraction devices.

    Unfortunately, radical innovation like this is still in its infancy:

    Once one moves past the chair one discovers other violent, rapy, women-hating bike terms like stem bolts, chains, handle bars, helmets, spokes, inner tubes – the list seems endless.

    In the light of such misogyny, the need to assign each woman her own well-provisioned, pink and purple SUV with free gasoline and maintenance for life has never been clearer.

    • Aimee McGee

      Eh? I look at bike seats and am grateful my gonads rest inside my abdominal cavity, nice and safe and warm.
      Even on my tri bike it takes only 3-4 days of regular cycling to acustom my rump to the pressure points of the seat. I can’t imagine how sore bike seats are for blokes – hence I forgive the use of cycle pants!

      • cvar

        It’s not as much of an issue as it seems. We’re not actually sitting on our balls, they just rest on the seat. I stand up on extra bumpy parts of the road, but that’s more because the sensation is unpleasant than painful.

        Only really in danger if you lose your seat. Plenty of places on a bike to ruin the rest of your day if that happens.

  • Ben

    Oh_My_God. . . Women don’t use the bicycle lanes put in place for them in the first place! Here on campus, the women cyclists refuse to use the bicycle lane. They come whizzing past and scare the ever living shit out of me every morning on the way to class. Seriously, I have nearly been hit and have jumped out of my freaking skin dozens of times just this semester.

    Occasionally, I ride my bike to class. I take the bicycle lane and have to constantly use my bicycle bell to get women pedestrians to get off the bicycle lane.

    What a bunch of damn hypocrits! They demand that cycling get less infrastructure funding on the grounds that it is patriarchal because it is an act of men allocating diproportionately high funding to a minority of citizens (cyclists) — who are men. But they bicycle in the pedestrian area (5 feet from the cyclist lanes) and they walk in the cyclist lane (again, 5 FEET from the pedestrian sidewalk)! Nobody is more guilty of that on this campus than women. Hands down.

  • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    G’day our AndyBobby.

    I love this short laser beam spotlight on feminism and road policy. How the two can be married is quite mad.

    But I look at a bicycle and I see two big wheels and a bar? Valves and pull-brakes, and what’s going on with that pump?

    Yeah, I can see the rabbit hole of this matter burrowing all the way to China.

  • malcolm

    What are the statistics on bicycle-rape?
    The world needs to know.

  • keyster

    I attended a seminar this morning where there was a two thirds majority of women. The person holding the seminar seemed very pleased with this develpment and accounced that the Men’s restroom would officially become “Unisex” when we took a break, ostensibly because women would have to wait longer thus delaying the commencement of the seminar.

    When break came I cheerfully walked into the ladies room to urinate. I woman told me “he said the Men’s room was unisex, not the ladies room. I told her I swore he said the restrooms would be unisex and went to a stall, (I prefer stalls to those filthy, splashy urinals anyway). One of the women’s husbands came up to me and said he didn’t appreciate me using the Ladies room. I told him I’m a gender equalist and don’t believe in discrimination based on sex. The blank stare was priceless.

    • Bombay

      Cool. A good example of everyday life human rights activism.

    • Dr. F (Ian Williams)


      This is a magnificent story. Thanks for standing up for us in both ways.

    • MGTOW-man

      Your bravery is political…and sorely needed. Thank you.

      When you went in there to take a whiz, you acted on many men’s behalf.

      Could you imagine the remarks hurled if mostly men attended, and it was said, “The women’s room will become unisex”—for exactly the same reasons!?

  • All Contraire

    “Surely this nonsense can’t continue for much longer.” . . . No? Of course, it can get much worse. Coming Headlines:

    “Head of ‘Rosa Parks Foundation’ hails men being relegated to the back of the bus…”

    “President OMamasboy signs bill legislating that women must now always have the right-of-way…”

    “… Women motorists sit behind wheels and glare at each other over which of them has the right-of-way, as men wait helplessly backed up at intersections unable to drive on…”

    “Women’s fear of male cyclists added to the list of offenses chargeable against men, punishable by a $5,000 fine, two years in prison, and registration as a Cyclical Offender.”

    “Follow-up Government Report finds women are especially afraid of Clowns Riding Unicycles.”

    “Case dismissed against female motorist after she cites Government Report on women’s fear of male bicyclists to justify why she ran over a Police Bike Patrolman and then assaulted his partner who was trying to arrest her. “I felt very threatened by that big *thing* in their tight shorts,” she testified…”

    In other transportation news: “Men are being blamed for women driving them crazy.”

    And finally this report: “Frozen fruit-flavored ‘peniscycles’ are becoming the rage with women. Available in ‘Small’, ‘Medium’, ‘Large’, ‘X-Large’…and ‘Stallion’. All profits go to support the Men’s Human Rights Movement…”

    • Bombay

      In that vein, Bax thought it had to end soon back in 1908.

  • John A

    Who said women don’t ride bicycles?

    Some historical perspective;

  • Dan Perrins

    Just speechless about the absurdity of these academic types.
    Can only respond with some humour pointing out the concept of ‘pedaling’ your ass, and ‘peddling’ your ass to work for money.
    Hypergamy anyone?

  • John A

    Good points Andy Bob, I originally thought WTF when I first heard about that report. A lot of people don’t like bicycles here and they’ll use any excuse to stop cycle ways. See where the vested interests lie (pun intended.) Call me a wuss, but I don’t like dicing with trucks either. For women the hair, shoes and physical exertion are big barriers…

    Patriarchy or different individual choices?

  • malcolm

    It’s completely natural that the majority of bicycle users would be men. A much greater number of boys get attached to their bicycles as teenagers and learn to perform tricks, or ride cross country, or just compete with one another in neighbourhood races. Girls, not so much. It makes sense that a greater number of boys and men would be comfortable enough with their bicycling skills to consider it a serious mode of transportation than would girls or women.

    Why do they have to introduce a gender angle to everything? Even the most innocuous and bland aspect of everyday life has to be studied and put under a microscope to see how women are disadvantaged. Even when the question isn’t being asked, so called experts introduce it into public discussion so they can be considered politically correct.

    This kowtowing to the altar of feminism knows no bounds.

  • Near Earth Object

    Bike Talk:
    I still don’t understand why men’s bikes have a crossbar and women’s bikes have a lower crossbar. Just seems counter-intuitive to me.

    : )

    I don’t know what’s crazier …
    feminists, or the things they think, and then talk about.

    • Stu

      Because it’s funny when men come off their seats and crush their balls on the crossbar. For women, not so much.

  • Kukla

    So because the majority of people who cycle tend to be men it’s somehow oppressive and sexist?

    Feminist is a genetic disorder. There’s is on other possible reason. This kind of stupidity cannot be learned. Unbelievable.

    • Near Earth Object

      Generally and in my experience, feminists are good at going off with their collective-mouth, and will all too often, put the proverbial cart before the horse.
      Just because a feminist thinks a particular thought—this is oppressive, or that is sexist—does not make it so. Again, just because a feminist utters a particular thought—this is oppressive, or that is sexist—does not make it so. What does make it so is a shared correspondence with reality.
      Given that, and generally speaking, feminists are only interested in their own sense of truth—reality. I can appreciate your statement, “feminism is a genetic disorder”. However, this would not take the ManGina (male) into account.
      I do grant the possibility of a genetic factor in all of this, but more along the lines of a genetic gender predisposition to behave in certain and predictable ways. That said, I am of the opinion that this stupidity, as you have referred to it, can indeed be learned. It only need be introduced in the context of an exclusive group and reinforced by group members.

      I have watched the character of many feminists change, depending upon the gender makeup of the room. They empower one another something fierce. However, at least one of their greatest Achilles Heels’ is isolation from the collective—they shrink and grow small.
      Most men can and will stand alone. Most feminists—in my experience—when confronted with the absence of their collective, will seek to build new alliances around some other common factor or they will shrink into the background or their own little (think ‘small’) world.

      Feminism as a political force, is something to be reckoned with. A feminist as an individual is not much more than a sniveling coward.

      I don’t know what’s crazier …
      feminists, or the things they think, and then talk about.

  • Suzanne McCarley

    I’m still shaking my head ten minutes later…

    I’ll be bookmarking this to show to the next person who thinks the MHRM exaggerates and lies to make feminists look bad. We don’t have to.

    • Stu

      Here in Oz, many years ago, the government paid for a program to design and manufacture special women’s surf boards, because according to feminists, women surfers were disadvantaged because ordinary boards were designed by men. Never mind the fact that the women didn’t compete against men in comps, this was just for your casual surfers. Loonies, taken seriously enough for gov to cough up money for.

      They will have their own pink bike tracks, with no men allowed soon lol

  • Kukla

    This is kind of off topic but I just found a video by Thomas Sowell talking about his book “Economic facts and Fallacies” and he mentions men and women in this interview at the beginning:

    “If you look at the women who got PhD’s in economics, chemistry, law and other post-graduate degrees. Those were all higher in the 20s and 30s than in the 50s”

  • VictorGarcia

    funny. because being a “circumcised” victim of male genital mutilation, i have a hard time riding bicycles many days of the year. funny how my actual survival of mutilation is understated by contrived bullshit.

    • Kukla

      Bullshit. I’m circumcised and I have no problem riding bikes. Being circumcised doesn’t interfere with that at all.

      • VictorGarcia

        it all depends on what they screwed up while you were laying there, and squirming as they tore your body apart.

  • Wilf
    • VictorGarcia

      we see people riding bikes to get from here to there. whats wrong?

      • Wilf

        Absolutely nothing.

        This is the end result of countries like the Netherlands and Denmark spending money on proper cycling infrastructure. Women and children end up having facilities that they feel safe to use, and the level of cycling amongst these groups is far, far higher than in other countries (such as Australia).

        The report reads more like an anti-cycling rant than an anti-men rant. The report is just using hostility against men as a weapon against cycling.

        • Andy Bob

          Cycling enthusiasts, perhaps predictably, interpreted the report as anti-cycling:

          “In his report Dr Mees doesn’t mention the fact that in the Netherlands more women cycle than men…However, he believes cycling gets a disproportionate amount of infrastructure provision because it’s a largely male activity and transport planners are predominantly male.”

          As you can see, even they refer to Dr Mees’ claim that infrastructure provision is the patriarchy looking after its own – without uttering a single word to refute this entirely unfounded assertion. Therein lays the problem. Nearly every single news outlet led by trumpeting the sexist motives of the transport planners.

          The following was typical:
          “Cycling is of “negligible” importance but has benefited from disproportionate government support because Australia’s mostly male policy makers are looking out for the nation’s mostly male cyclists.”

          Accusing town planners of bias in their budgeting decisions without a shred of evidence or even allowing them a right of reply is an outrageous example of the shameless misandry. Such a damning would never have been allowed if the sexes had been reversed.

          To our European friends, beware of Dr Paul Mees. According to Bikebiz magazine:
          “Dr Mees’ work is internationally influential: the EU’s HiTrans project on improving public transport in medium-sized cities and towns from 2005 was based on his work.”

          • Wilf

            The misandry in the report is just a tool to promote a pro public transport agenda. Misandry has become so endemic that it can be used by anyone to promote any agenda whatsoever and it will go largely unchallenged (especially by the mainstream media). To do so leaves the the challenger open to accusations of sexism or misogyny.

            As deep throat once said “follow the money”. The authors are clearly in the pockets of the public transport lobby. Cycling and public transport both require investment from the public purse and are therefore in competition for the same scarce resources. By discrediting cycling and promoting walking (which doesn’t require additional funding) the authors are seeking to take the money away from cycling infrastructure projects and into public transport. Trying to link cycling infrastructure spending to male bias is just so crass that even the feminists have stayed away from this one.

            The authors claim to be promoting european style public transport but clearly do not understand the role of cycling in an integrated transport system. I support public transport and sustainable travel but this report is just complete and utter shite, and does nothing to promote it. Epic fail.

  • donzaloog

    This level of stupidity is over 9000! I always wonder how any self-respecting editor at a newspaper of whatever can look at an article like this and with a straight face say, “Print it.”

    I would throw it straight in the bin, tell the writer to stop worshiping her own genitalia and write a proper fucking article.

    • Bombay

      And that is on a scale from 1 to 10? LOL

  • Robert St. Estephe

    “feminist lies” is now a standard term, which, I think, needs, at this point, an abbreviated form, since it is the kind of term you need to use constantly. I tried out “FL” for a little bit, but now I think I’ve got a better one: “flies.”

    It works. Example: “Remember how when you were a sophomore and you were in history class trying to figure out how they got from the Roman Empire to the Middle ages, which is something pretty hard to nail down, and the teacher skips over a whole thousand years of complex reality and replaces facts and details with her (or his) regular bullshit litany of FLIES?

    • Bombay

      Nice one. So when someone says the expression “that flies in the face of reality”, what was really meant was those feminist lies are BS. I always wondered where that expression came from. LOL

  • TDOM

    Funny how the authors could have taken a much different slant on this stroy. Instead of turning it into a discussion of female disadvantage, it could have been made to praise men. Obviously more men are willing to give up the gas guzzling pollution machines in order to reduce traffic and save the environment. They are more health conscious and willing to become more physically fit. This not only reduces the need for expanding the roadways and increases the amount of fresh air, but may also reduce health insurance costs as the men become more fit. But of course it plays much better if it is seen as a problem for women rather than a positive for men.

  • All Contraire

    “Surely this nonsense can’t continue for much longer.” . . . No? Of course, it can get much worse. Coming Headlines:

    “Head of ‘Rosa Parks Foundation’ hails men being relegated to the back of the bus…”

    “President OMamasboy signs bill legislating that women must now always have the right-of-way…”

    “… Women motorists at intersections sit behind wheels and glare at each other over which of them has the right-of-way, as men wait helplessly backed up behind them, unable to drive on…”

    “Women’s fear of male cyclists added to the list of offenses chargeable against men, punishable by a $5,000 fine, two years in prison, and registration as a Cyclical Offender.”

    “Follow-up Government Report finds women are especially afraid of Clowns Riding Unicycles.”

    “Case dismissed against female motorist after she cites Government Report on ‘Women’s fear of male bicyclists’ to justify why she ran over a Police Bike Patrolman and then assaulted his partner who was trying to arrest her. “I felt very threatened by that big *thing* in their tight shorts,” she testified…”

    In other transportation news: “Men are being blamed for women driving them crazy.”

    And finally this report: “Frozen fruit-flavored ‘peniscycles’ are becoming the rage with women. Available in ‘Small’, ‘Medium’, ‘Large’, ‘X-Large’…and ‘Stallion’ size. All profits go to support the Men’s Human Rights Movement…”

    • MGTOW-man


      But not all that unbelievable. Just look around.

  • Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

    Does Australia have mandatory helmet laws?

    That’s the reason right there.

    Helmets fuck with your hair.

    It’s straight up vanity

  • Krolll

    The report might be an example of mandatory ‘gender mainstreaming’.

    • Wilf

      I don’t see it. The authors have their own agenda and are introducing gender to try and push it. There is no feminism at work here, they are just the authors ‘useful idiots’.

  • MGTOW-man

    ‘Policy makers should focus all of its money and attention on making cycling safe and easy for women.”
    —the same thing, sort of, was said by a woman (women) on the “Amazing Race” reality show. Yep. When the race was won by men on the show’s first season, a woman, when poked at for comments, publicly said, (paraphrased): ” There needs to be more ways to help women, so that women can compete.”

    Apparently, even though the makers of the show undoubtedly tried to make the competition more-co-ed friendly and capable, still, she (speaking for all women) just couldn’t muster. This begs the question: will we make American football more women-friendly to play?

    That is the selfish equivalent to saying, ” You all need to help women win”.

    Those nutty-type women (far more numerous—apparently— than thought to be, as evidenced by so much—too much—tolerance for male-hostile laws) actually believe that they can “win” even if they were helped across the finish line. They just do not want men to notice that they were helped…you know, be honest and tell the truth….and the men take it with a lump in their throats! …So much for “hating women”.

    Those women just do not have the capacity to see beyond, well, apparently, their own feelings. They are unaware how their feelings can distort their perceptions of reality—a literal reality that doesn’t change to reflect their feelings-based hype going on in their minds, thus making those women unfit for public discourse—probably a reason why most women were excluded from the public sphere in yesteryear.

    More women are alike, in this respect, than even we MRA’s are willing to admit. Why else can not only so many crazy anti-male/pro-female biased laws come into existence, but also persist despite expert and scholarly people—both men and women— attempting changes? It has to be that women just do not get it! Are they even capable?!!

    I believe women needing special treatment for bicycling (among other things) is just another way their behavior wreaks of them not understanding enough for them to be included in all public domains. Not intended as a put- down for women, but that evolution may have had to focus female energies on other things equal. You think?!!! —just an observation that is laced with commonsense and as we are starting to find out after all, science.

  • Perseus

    Fuck themselves to hell, hell, hell ……. fucking trash

  • TheSandreGuy

    *Reads article*


    *Touches face*


    *Grabs chest*


    *Is feeling dizzy*


    *Passes out on the floor*

    • Perseus

      Quite a spectacle, emotional outburst and ne’er a shred of a point. True bitch form.

      Whaaa, bike riding is ‘male-dominated’, where’s my cookie, whaaaa. Not a cunt hair of respect for the risk, effort and sacrifice that males expend in earning the high honor of ‘dominating’ bike riding. Dumb hystrionic cunt. May your slumber be eternal

      • TheSandreGuy

        If feminists are being this silly, what can you do but to laugh?

        • Perseus

          Sandre, please accept my sincerest apologies. I was taking a risk with the interpretation of your comment that I chose, but also figured that if I was wrong then just a misunderstanding, no harm no foul. My bad.

          Hilarious btw


  • Kasey

    My beautifully elegant response to this:

    • Paul Elam

      That was deep. You really destroyed his position, point by point with red hot intellect.

      What do you do for a second act?

  • Kasey

    I meant it as a response to the issue, bro 😛 The whole situation is the reason I dislike the human race.

  • Kasey

    Or part of it, anyway.

  • Kasey

    I love how I get downvoted even if I agree. XD

  • cr8054

    So now too many men use the bicycle lanes?? Oh yeah, we got to get rid of those!! What will they go after next? Bocci Ball courts?