Councillor feels wrath of "Jordan Peterson and Tories across the land" by saying gritting routes “can be sexist” and “must change” to help cyclists and pedestrians

Yes like it or not, racism, sexism, inequalities... ARE systemic. Full stop.

no they are not.. full stop.

Seems the Lib Dems are determined to repeat the same absurd failed arguments Sweden tried for snow gritting. They too called the way snow was gritted sexist and instead flipped it to prioritise schools and routes women would take.

Obviously this backfired and caused traffic chaos, so was quickly reversed...Only for the Lib Dems here to now try and revive it.

Traffic chaos you say...? Many places get that every day anyway through the selfless actions of everyone driving.  Perhaps we should try encouraging a bit more?

I picked up some ice runners from Aldi, mainly rubber with a few metal spikes, they work, got some for the better half too.

And some more walking ones for my parents, more boot specific, rubber lengths with coiled wire around it. Don't know if they were ever used, don't get much ice in Bexhill on sea.

Just that little more grip.

None as good as my metal spiked tyres though, or as fun.

Why would you commute that short distance by car anyway? This sort of unecesary short  journey by car is why our roads get so congested and polluted. 

I don't think gritting roads falls into that category though.

Roads are chosen to be gritted based on the economic needs of the area.

If that happens to disproportionately benefit men that doesn't necessarily make it a bad policy.

Gritting cycle paths will (in the UK at least) disproportionately benefit men too. That doesn't mean that's a bad policy either.

quite so.

and isnt it just sexist to assume women dont drive on the main roads and all travel with children in pushchairs anyway ?

There is that as well.

Rather ironic that it requires a sexist generalisation in order to accuse road gritters of sexism.

Rich_cb wrote:

There is that as well.

Rather ironic that it requires a sexist generalisation in order to accuse road gritters of sexism.

That's a fair comment but there is a section in the book that covers a remarkably similar thing, around road design and the priorities of transportation systems in general. It would be impossible for the gender bias inherent in that decision making to not impact road gritting. If you haven't read that book I really would recommend it.

I haven't read the book but that sort of thing does interest me so I'll track down a copy.

Out of curiosity, what was the inherent gender bias in transportation priority?

Was it deliberately designed as such or was it an unintended byproduct?

A few years ago I read a fascinating piece about racial bias in access to healthcare, many of the decisions that led to said disparities where actually designed to try and improve access to healthcare but systemic factors led to an unintended racially biased outcome.

It's been a few years since I read it, but as far as I remember, my takeaway was that that gender bias is caused in lots of different ways, some intentional/conscious and some unintentional/unconscious. The book covered road design, car design (with a really interesting section on seatbelts especially) and some information on managing winter weather - I think it covered clearing rather than gritting, but I'm sure some is the subject matter is relevant.

Actually managed to find a preview of the ebook which included most of the snow chapter.

It seems in that case the gender bias was unintentional as the priority was given to workers/commuters and their needs. Men were overrepresented in those groups.

I expect the councillor in question has read that book!

In those scenarios I don't think it's necessarily the best idea to aim for gender equality. If you don't prioritise workers with gritting then the economic impact of snow is worse.

That means less tax revenue, which means less money for public services (including gritting, ironically), public services are used disproportionately by women.Gender equality in gritting could worsen gender equality elsewhere!

Why do you think that 'prioritising workers' or the economic impact is inherently more important? Do you think that going to work is inherently more important than family/social functions? That itself is driven by a historic gender bias.

I've already addressed that point.

If we don't prioritise the economic aspect then the economic impact is greater. This leads to lower tax revenue which leads to public service cuts which impact families disproportionately.

Rich_cb wrote:

I've already addressed that point.

If we don't prioritise the economic aspect then the economic impact is greater. This leads to lower tax revenue which leads to public service cuts which impact families disproportionately.

Yes but you haven't explained why addressing the economic impact is important in the first place. You're assuming that getting to work (traditionally more masculine activities) is more important than getting to social/familial support networks etc (traditionally more feminine activities). And for some reason you think that getting to work is an important enabler, which didn't really make sense - why not just put equal priority on the needs of women in the first place? It sounds like trickle down economics to me (which does on fact not trickle down).

The fact that you take that stance is telling and is covered in the book also.

I have explained.

Reducing economic impact leads to an increased tax take.

This benefits those that rely on public services.

Imagine the converse situation. No roads are gritted or cleared, all pavements are. During heavy snow or ice many businesses have to shut. They make less profit, they pay less tax. If all else remains equal then the government has less money to spend and must cut public services.

Which groups lose out in that situation?

Trickle down economics is the idea that reducing the tax take will lead to increased spending and therefore wider economic benefit. It's not really applicable here.

Which groups lose out? All of them. Sounds fairer to me.

Your suggestion that increasing the tax take is more important than getting kids to school is an example of intent gender bias, not an argument against it.

All groups do not rely on public services equally.

Your own counterargument demonstrates that neatly.

Families with children rely on schooling which is paid for by... economic activity in the private sector.

Women use far more public services than men on average. So a policy that led to more public sector cuts would, by your own logic, be gender biased.

Without economic activity in the private sector there would be no public services. Protecting economic activity is therefore protecting public services and those who rely on them.

Rich_cb wrote:

All groups do not rely on public services equally.

Your own counterargument demonstrates that neatly.

Families with children rely on schooling which is paid for by... economic activity in the private sector.

Women use far more public services than men on average. So a policy that led to more public sector cuts would, by your own logic, be gender biased.

Without economic activity in the private sector there would be no public services. Protecting economic activity is therefore protecting public services and those who rely on them.

Closing some businesses for the few days per year where it snows is going to result in the schools shutting is it? Pull the other one.

I could make the same disingenuous argument about the schools. Shut the schools, kids won't get an education, they won't be productive members of society, life as we know it ends. See how farcical that is?

Look up the economic effect of extra bank holidays.

It's significant and most bank holidays have significantly increased leisure spending to partially compensate for the decreased activity elsewhere.

Closing businesses for a few extra days a year wont lead to schools shutting but it will lead to fewer resources being available for each child, decreased funding for the NHS etc.

Decreased public spending will disproportionately affect women so not gritting the roads is actually gender bias.

Looks like you can't actually win. Every option is sexist.

Love that defeatist attitude. If data exists to base a fair decision on - to prevent that gender bias - that would solve the problem.

You assume that the benefit to the female gender from increased public spending outweighs the loss to the female gender from biased action. If you have data to back that up, you could solve this problem right now and do your bit for a fairer society. Care to share?

What's your solution then?

How do you solve this conundrum?

Personally I'd stick to the status quo, try and maintain the maximum economic benefit from the gritters.

AFAIK no data exists on this topic so neither of us have anything quantitative to back up our position.

Data does exist on this subject. It shows that public spending for snow/ice management disproportionately benefits men over women. Were you not paying attention?

My solution to this problem would be for decision-making for public spending to not involve assumptions with inherent gender biases, like the ones you've mentioned numerous times now around 'maximum economic benefit'.

The current decision-making process involves gender bias. There is literally a book on it.