‘Ducks on bikes’? Drop these demeaning labels for women

So now, it seems, we have ‘ducks on bikes’.

Forgive me if this label is not new to you.

But it was to me, and to the friend I was with.

We had just completed a lengthy and reasonably strenuous hike and were sitting at an outdoor café table having coffee.

Several adults decked out in the bright, comfortable exercise clothing so popular now, were sitting behind us at a nearby table.

They were younger than my friend and I, and I had presumed them to be hikers or cyclists as we passed them by on the way to our table with our mugs.

And then one of the female hikers/cyclists, young-ish, lean and clearly very fit, started to talk quite loudly about ducks on bikes.

As I recall, she was inquiring whether other members of the group had heard about the term, which, it seems, is the latest way of referring to older female cyclists.

Ducks on bikes, I understood, is a disapproving description of mature female cyclists who do not lift weights.

As I understood it that day, such cyclists apparently have flabby, unattractive arms which, apparently, have become the subject of some ribaldry amongst some members of the younger, athletic set like this person. Because they look like ducks. On bikes.

It was at this point that I turned and took a look at the group, which appeared to be made up of fit, nicely dressed, affluent-looking people in their thirties, maybe older.

My friend turned and looked too and then we stared at each other, baffled.

“Oh well, I suppose we’re all supposed to be lifting weights,” my friend said resignedly.

“Hang on just a second there,” I said.

“Whether or not mature female cyclists lift weights doesn’t give anybody the right to label and shame them like this or make older women self-conscious about cycling their bikes, which this could.”

Deeply annoyed now, I turned away again from the chattering, laughing group.

“Don’t we,” I observed, “have enough misogyny as it is, in this society”?

“And here’s this woman openly finger-pointing at older members of her own sex who get out and cycle miles every weekend or more, for exercise and health.

“These are often women who have worked extremely hard all their lives, women who may well have struggled to hold down full-time jobs, rear families, and manage busy homes.

“Women whose example and sheer hard work have enabled and empowered this generation of young women.

“And here’s this one and others of her ilk slapping a demeaning label on them and making fun of them and shaming them because in their opinion these cyclists’ arms aren’t toned enough.”

My God, I thought disgustedly.

How quick off the mark we are - not just men - to label a woman, to categorise and stereotype her based on our own disapproving opinion.

There’s another phrase for female cyclists. ‘Bicycle Betties’. Flippant. Dismissive, and, it must be said, similar in tone to one of the rare, sneering acronyms for men that I’ve come across.

MAMIL stands for Middle Aged Man in Lycra. It points the finger at older men who have the cop-on and the guts to get out there and take the exercise which keeps their arms, legs, and cores working into old age.

But anyone, it seems, and all too often, any woman who uses her voice and has a bit of gusto and doesn’t stay inside all day, must be slapped down with some kind of shaming label.

Let’s see now. Women who defend themselves and voice opinions are feminists who emasculate men and could never appreciate the courtesy of the helpful male who opens a door for them. Who on earth ever decided any of that?

THOT isn’t even a word for a woman. It’s a disgusting acronym which stands for ‘That Hoe Over There’.

Is there a male equivalent? Haven’t heard one.

Strong, successful women are bossy, and aggressive, never assertive. They are ‘ball-breakers’. They are ‘battle-axes’.

What’s the male equivalent? I never heard one.

A woman who is dogged or persistent is a ‘nag’.

A man who is dogged or persistent is simply a guy who knows what he’s about.

Then we have all the ubiquitous ‘mother-in-law’ jokes.

Ever heard a joke about ‘the father-in-law?’

There is the ‘career woman’, which objectively, is defined as a woman who feels that her job (and success in her job) is very important to her. But this phrase is rarely used objectively.

Yet, what about all those many, many men out there who so proudly and openly prioritise their ambition and career success?

I can’t recall ever hearing an ambitious, hard-working male being pointedly referred to as a ‘career man’.

Women are ‘sluts’. Women are ‘prudes’. Rarely have I heard those phrases used to describe a man’s attitude to sexuality.

Ah, look, the list of demeaning terms for women is endless.

Think twice before you slap a label on somebody, man or woman. It’s hurtful. It’s demeaning and damaging.

It can affect many things, from eroding a person’s self-esteem to restricting promotion opportunities. Really. It can.

We need to expose and challenge this behaviour of shaming through labels.

And we need to stop applying them.