Why is this an inherently good objective to pursue? Are there studies showing that it would be 50/50 if it weren't for those listed factors, or did they find a few examples supporting the hypothesis and then it's all about equality of outcome and shaping society according to a biased perspective?-- that might not actually reflect individual choices in reality.
In some cases like earning wages, I can see some form of argument for equality of outcome, but is this supposed to be applied to literally everything? 50/50 going to the beach, 50/50 enjoy chococlate the same way, 50/50 split in obesity rates, etc.
In the joint opinon of the three authors:
This is not healthy. While cycling is good for everyone, women stand to gain more because they typically exercise less than men.
Women are also at higher risk of osteoporosis, arthritis, anxiety, depression and various autoimmune diseases. So they need more of the type of exercise like cycling that builds bone density, strengthens muscles, helps manage weight and improves mood.Even in your quote:
> women stand to gain more because they typically exercise less than men.
Why this focus? Why not just tell women to exercise more, and men should be completely irrelevant here.
Would be curious to see which of these asymmetries persist in countries ranked higly on the gender inequality index, e.g. the Netherlands and Sweden [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index#Top_te...
"Women cycle more than men. In total, women make almost 17% more bicycle trips per year (2.4 billion compared to 2.0 billion by men). The share of cycling among women (29%) is therefore higher than among men (27%)." [1]
[1]: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2023/01/04/how-did-the-pa...
The sentence "Bad weather, hills, and dark deter cyclists, particularly women. What can we do?" fits in the HN title field with 0 characters left. It's even got an Oxford comma.