Official Glass Slipper Challenge Thread

[longhorns2]

Called rundisney this morning. Some small updates in my blog.

 

[SAHDad]

Oh, I am so excited!!

I haven't done a Disney race in years. Really missing it...was thinking of doing the marathon weekend races, but it didn't seem to work out with the whole wedding/honeymoon plans...

But this works out much better! And I'm a totally glass slipper kinda gal

And as the whole women/men thing....I think it's great that there are events that get those out there that normally wouldn't, and I'm a sucker for anything girly/pink. But....I totally understand why the men are frustrated with the corrals, too. I'm not fast enough to be competitive to win any ag awards or anything like that, but trying to get faster and hit my goal times is what keeps running fun and interesting to me...so I guess I'm a wanna-be competitive runner Based on the times for the corrals, I would be pretty upset if I was seeded in c, as it would be tough be able to run my own race. I would also imagine if I was a c runner, it wouldn't be much fun having a stampede of guys run past me running me at a much faster pace, either. It's kinda a lose-lose situation.

I personally think my idea of giving the elite runners (like the 1:30 or faster runners...the ones who actually would win the race), a 15 minute or so head start, ensuring a woman is the first person to cross the finish, is brilliant. Then you can seed runners by ability regardless of gender, so everyone can run their own race, safely. Problem solved!

My two cents

The corralling issue is the main reason that I won't be doing the Tink or Princess anytime soon. It's just too dangerous to deal with such a massive disparity of paces - I mean, putting anyone who can run a 1:45 in the same corral as a 2:44 pace? Really? (The other reason is that, anecdotally, I have heard that the women get progressively less friendly to male runners that farther up the pack you go.)

I have wondered why Disney does not just shunt men off to a secondary chute until the first woman has crossed the official finish line (with banner & confetti), and then close off the secondary at that point. Men already don't get awards, so it's not as though our times really matter to anyone other than ourselves.

I like that they added a 10k, and, given the general theming of the weekend, it really doesn't bug me much.

 

[dewingedpixie]

The corralling issue is the main reason that I won't be doing the Tink or Princess anytime soon. It's just too dangerous to deal with such a massive disparity of paces - I mean, putting anyone who can run a 1:45 in the same corral as a 2:44 pace? Really? (The other reason is that, anecdotally, I have heard that the women get progressively less friendly to male runners that farther up the pack you go.)

I have wondered why Disney does not just shunt men off to a secondary chute until the first woman has crossed the official finish line (with banner & confetti), and then close off the secondary at that point. Men already don't get awards, so it's not as though our times really matter to anyone other than ourselves.

I like that they added a 10k, and, given the general theming of the weekend, it really doesn't bug me much.

Its anyone <2:15 but I agree. I'm hoping they open a <2:00 corral this year for the ladies.

Nike segregates off the men, as does zooma, and diva doesn't even allow men. A lot of this is because they are women oriented races they want to ensure a woman will win, and to hype the girl power theme. Running used to be mostly a man's sport. Its races like this that have allowed many women to feel comfortable and come into the sport. I see why its done. I've run many many races and I wont lie as a woman the woman's races are very dear to my heart. I really like the vibe at them its very inclusive and wonderful. You don't get that at a 70.3 half iron you're on your own to get your *** to the line. That's all fine and dandy because I can get it done. However there is something special in celebrating women's athletic which were for so long discouraged, and so many women find intimidating. You can be feminine and strong. I really like that someone has made exercise inclusive of the ladies. So many of my friends never would have started without these types of races. I am happy they were there to include them making them love the sport.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

I know people will disagree with me, but yes, because of the corral situation, I wish Disney would just say, "No men, please."

 

[SAHDad]

Its anyone <2:15 but I agree. I'm hoping they open a <2:00 corral this year for the ladies.

Nike segregates off the men, as does zooma, and diva doesn't even allow men. A lot of this is because they are women oriented races they want to ensure a woman will win, and to hype the girl power theme. Running used to be mostly a man's sport. Its races like this that have allowed many women to feel comfortable and come into the sport. I see why its done. I've run many many races and I wont lie as a woman the woman's races are very dear to my heart. I really like the vibe at them its very inclusive and wonderful. You don't get that at a 70.3 half iron you're on your own to get your *** to the line. That's all fine and dandy because I can get it done. However there is something special in celebrating women's athletic which were for so long discouraged, and so many women find intimidating. You can be feminine and strong. I really like that someone has made exercise inclusive of the ladies. So many of my friends never would have started without these types of races. I am happy they were there to include them making them love the sport.

OKay, for this year, corral C was2:45, IIRC. If they change it, they may still find that men have to be moved back another corral or two - a half is enough time that a fast man can start 14 minutes back, and make it up and win it. (He would have to be very fast, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.)

The problem that I am having is that I have to explain to DS, who is 9, why women-only races are ok. I can start with women being excluded from distance running, until Switzer ran Boston in 1967. I can say that Boston prevented women from running until 1972. He points out (correctly) that both events happened before I was born, let alone him. I can point to Benoit-Samuelson winning the 1984 Olympic Women's marathon, and talk about Title IX*, and he points out that it, too, is older than I am. He doesn't see the point, and considers the whole thing to be terribly unfair, and, to be frank, I can see his perspective. The fact that his youngest sister has picked up on it does not help - as she says, I can do anything that you can, and other stuff too - because I am a girl and you are not.

* True story - a local running store decided to celebrate equality in sports by having a women-only half marathon. Women truly have gone from exclusion to exclusivity. . . . and here I thought that the goal was equality.

I like Disney adding more races. My bank account hates it, but I like it. I just wish Disney would take a more egalitarian view, but they are following the money. Women's races sell well. (The same people who pressed for women-only events a decade ago, because women were under-represented, are now pushing for more women-only events, because women are so well represented.)

 

[dewingedpixie]

OKay, for this year, corral C was2:45, IIRC. If they change it, they may still find that men have to be moved back another corral or two - a half is enough time that a fast man can start 14 minutes back, and make it up and win it. (He would have to be very fast, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.)

The problem that I am having is that I have to explain to DS, who is 9, why women-only races are ok. I can start with women being excluded from distance running, until Switzer ran Boston in 1967. I can say that Boston prevented women from running until 1972. He points out (correctly) that both events happened before I was born, let alone him. I can point to Benoit-Samuelson winning the 1984 Olympic Women's marathon, and talk about Title IX*, and he points out that it, too, is older than I am. He doesn't see the point, and considers the whole thing to be terribly unfair, and, to be frank, I can see his perspective. The fact that his youngest sister has picked up on it does not help - as she says, I can do anything that you can, and other stuff too - because I am a girl and you are not.

* True story - a local running store decided to celebrate equality in sports by having a women-only half marathon. Women truly have gone from exclusion to exclusivity. . . . and here I thought that the goal was equality.

I like Disney adding more races. My bank account hates it, but I like it. I just wish Disney would take a more egalitarian view, but they are following the money. Women's races sell well. (The same people who pressed for women-only events a decade ago, because women were under-represented, are now pushing for more women-only events, because women are so well represented.)

Oh I agree it is a selling point. The women's races no offense are often also more fun than the men's ones. Why? Because they know it sells and women will do it. However I do know many women as stated that would not run were it not for these women's races to start them out. I'm an avid runner but I do love a good women's race there is a vibe you just don't get anywhere else. I just did Nike DC yesterday and the inclusiveness of making each runner's achievement special was there and that is what sells these races more than anything. The celebration that you are fabulous because you're doing this as an individual. These races really tailor to that market and celebrating your personal achievement asking why are you doing this, what are you celebrating etc. Women really buy into that, and I think that more races that are not just women centered should sell this theme because men would buy it too given the chance. However men's sports really want to sell the sport of the sport and don't think about I can sell this is fun. I think a star wars race or pirates race would go over excellent. They'd also get a lot of men on the couch off of it running and realizing they don't have to be Mr. Universe to run and have fun. Hell I'd run both myself even if I got beaten by a ton of guys!

 

[bumbershoot]

A lot of this is because they are women oriented races they want to ensure a woman will win, and to hype the girl power theme.

For me, forcing men to the back is as far FROM girl power as you can get. What they are saying is "we have to put them men all the way back, cause them to trip over everything else, so there's a chance for a woman to win." And worse, they are DOING it.

And the fact of the matter is that a man is almost certain to win if it's a straight competition. There's nothing sexist in saying that most men can get bigger and stronger and even faster than most women. There's also nothing sexist in saying that a person born with uterus, ovaries, and a working endocrine system is far more likely to have a baby than a person born with the other bits and pieces. It is what it is.

And to push men to the back just to ensure that a woman will will is very very close to being disgusting to me. I couldn't take part in that.

In fact, being new to the running thing, it seems the antithesis of RUNNING. From everything I've read, from all the inspirational essays and blogs I've read, modern running is inclusive, is supportive, is happy. We're all mainly racing ourselves anyway, at the end of the day. But to exclude a group from being able to win? That's not inclusive or supportive.

The problem that I am having is that I have to explain to DS, who is 9, why women-only races are ok. ....

Women truly have gone from exclusion to exclusivity. . . . and here I thought that the goal was equality.

I'm with you.

I have 3 brothers and a husband and a son, and I cannot stand this turn of events and really wish I didn't know about it. I can be as good as I can be, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest if my brothers will ALWAYS be faster than me (well, I might beat out the middle one, since he smokes and is damaging his lungs), even if only because one has never stopped running while I did, and the other two are 6'3" with long long legs compared to my shrimpy legs and 5'3" body. My half-sis will also always be faster than me, since she's 25 years younger than me! But it's all OK, because I'm running against myself and have no need to skew the results by not allowing certain people to enter or have a good position.

 

[SAHDad]

Oh I agree it is a selling point. The women's races no offense are often also more fun than the men's ones. Why? Because they know it sells and women will do it. However I do know many women as stated that would not run were it not for these women's races to start them out. I'm an avid runner but I do love a good women's race there is a vibe you just don't get anywhere else. I just did Nike DC yesterday and the inclusiveness of making each runner's achievement special was there and that is what sells these races more than anything. The celebration that you are fabulous because you're doing this as an individual. These races really tailor to that market and celebrating your personal achievement asking why are you doing this, what are you celebrating etc. Women really buy into that, and I think that more races that are not just women centered should sell this theme because men would buy it too given the chance. However men's sports really want to sell the sport of the sport and don't think about I can sell this is fun. I think a star wars race or pirates race would go over excellent. They'd also get a lot of men on the couch off of it running and realizing they don't have to be Mr. Universe to run and have fun. Hell I'd run both myself even if I got beaten by a ton of guys!

Yes, but because women's races sell well, and have the "fun vibe", I suspect that, if there is a Star Wars race, it will be women-centered.

 

[dewingedpixie]

And the fact of the matter is that a man is almost certain to win if it's a straight competition. There's nothing sexist in saying that most men can get bigger and stronger and even faster than most women. There's also nothing sexist in saying that a person born with uterus, ovaries, and a working endocrine system is far more likely to have a baby than a person born with the other bits and pieces. It is what it is.

Most of the time men will win, but there is something you dont know about the difference between men and women. Men are sprinters by nature, women are built for endurance. Men are taller typically with higher muscle mass this makes them innately faster. The man's job was to do the final kill, the woman's to run the prey to exhuastion. A women's extra fat and the tilt of their hips makes them quicker at recovery. This is why as the courses get longer this difference in time per mile gets smaller between men and women. It is also a fact that women recover from endurance races faster than men. So if you say had an ultra event with 5 fifty milers back to back on the 5th day you could probably have a woman win over a man fair and square simply because at this distance the time difference is much lower than in a 10 miler, and the woman would have a much larger advantage over the man in recovery. This is why in ultra events you see much smaller gaps between men and women finishers than in marathons. I truly believe as these sports grow you will see a woman over take a man in ultras, and eventually that may even become a place where you can and will see it become an equal competition between endurance and speed. I dont know how soon that will be but I do think we will see it.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

This is why as the courses get longer this difference in time per mile gets smaller between men and women. It is also a fact that women recover from endurance races faster than men.

This doesn't hold out by facts.

For example, the pace difference between men and women in the world record 5k is 29 seconds, but for the half it's 35 seconds/mile. By the time you get to the marathon, it's 27 seconds, but by the time you get to 50k, it's back up to 45 seconds.

 

[SAHDad]

This doesn't hold out by facts.

For example, the pace difference between men and women in the world record 5k is 29 seconds, but for the half it's 35 seconds/mile. By the time you get to the marathon, it's 27 seconds, but by the time you get to 50k, it's back up to 45 seconds.

See also the Self-Transcendence 3100 race. I'm doing some more checking, but it looks like men hold the course records for Leadville, Lake Tahoe 3-day, Across the Years, and Badwater. (The 3100, Lake Tahoe, and Across the Years are all multi-day events.)

ETA - pretty sure men generally win Marathon des Sables as well.

This is not to say that a woman cannot win an ultra outright - it certainly does happen. Once you pass mile 35 or so, it becomes a mental game, and, IIRC, women are much more likely to finish the Comrades Ultra, even though more men start the race.

I have never found any literature that states that persistence hunting was largely the domain of women - the best I have found states that it would have been fairly egalitarian, since it takes less than half a day, and at speeds not much above 6 or 7 mph as an average, to bring down prey animals.

Anyway - all this is probably fodder for another thread, if people want to start it. Disney is unlikely to add a 50k to the roster, let alone a long race, but a few more 10k events throughout the year would not be amiss.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

LOL, what would they call a 50k at Disney? The Incredible Journey?

 

[Danhockey04]

Why? Because they know it sells and women will do it. However I do know many women as stated that would not run were it not for these women's races to start them out.

I am so sick of this statement that women wouldn't run if it weren't for these races, if they wouldn't run before a women's run, then that's sad and pathetic. That is not a reason to do a race, if you have to do a gender only race to feel enticed to a race, you shouldn't be running to start with. If you cannot run with everyone, then don't race. It is getting really annoying that some women feel they are entitled to their women only races and always have to put down those that realize that excluding people from a co-ed sport is wrong. The point of running a race for most people is staying healthy and active, having fun with other athletes, it is not about being empowered by others women, if that is what you are looking for, a race is not the place. Also, anytime I see a woman wear a women's only race shirt, it sickens me as you wear a shirt that can promote segregation and be acceptable, and yet still be seen as normal. It's been over 40+ years since women were able to run and now some feel they deserve their women only races.

Though, if you look at this thread, the first moment of complaining came from a woman saying men are complaining. Now, if they made the marathon weekend and DL weekend and all the supporting events male centered/only, there'd be hell exploding about it, and you cannot say there wouldn't be. Also, I don't know how a women's race can be more fun because sales are better, not sure how that makes it more fun.

I have no issue doing these races as they are not women only, but putting men further back as discussed does not give for good races and actually lowers the quality of the race. There is no issues with this race, but as I have said before, just make it another normal race and keep the race theme. Also, if men are in corral C again, and it is slow, I will have no issue running through corral B again, but its those that stop, randomly cross and such will get hurt, not by me but by all the other men quickly approaching making it very dangerous. And lastly to the one that said just don't allow men not to run period in this race, they do that, it will seriously cause more problems than help, especially locally.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

I don't think that it's an issue of women not running because of coed races. But the appeal of a women's race is why many, many of us started running, and there's nothing sad or pathetic about that. Seriously. I've run more than 3000 miles since the first time I spectated the Princess Half. I don't think I'm pathetic.

 

[Danhockey04]

I don't think your pathetic, it's the fact that you need a women's only event to start running. I don't need a men's only race to start running. My women friends don't need a women's only race to start running, they do it because they want to have fun while keeping healthy, and that's the reason one should start running. If you spectated at marathon weekend with a co-ed event, would you have not been encouraged to run? Spectating at any normal co-ed race should be enough to get you running if you had anything in you to start. No where in there does there require a women's only event to start running.

 

[Twoboysnmygirl]

I had a discussion with a friend about the women's races recently because I was feeling strange after talking to my teenage sons about it. What she said made a lot of sense to me...

We need women's races so that women have a chance to compete with their athletic peers. I'm not trying to be offensive, but men are faster, it's biological, right? So, we don't scoff at special Olympics because those athletes should have some races where they can race against their peers. This is how I'm looking at a female race. It's a chance for us to race our peers, it's not about excluding men, but they will naturally be faster in many cases and are not our athletic equals.

I'm still mulling this over in my head and it's just going to have to work as my reasoning for now. I'm not sure I would want to a race that completely excluded a gender though. I would not be offended if there was a men's race, my sons asked where the Prince race was.

 

[Danhockey04]

I had a discussion with a friend about the women's races recently because I was feeling strange after talking to my teenage sons about it. What she said made a lot of sense to me...

We need women's races so that women have a chance to compete with their athletic peers. I'm not trying to be offensive, but men are faster, it's biological, right? So, we don't scoff at special Olympics because those athletes should have some races where they can race against their peers. This is how I'm looking at a female race. It's a chance for us to race our peers, it's not about excluding men, but they will naturally be faster in many cases and are not our athletic equals.

I'm still mulling this over in my head and it's just going to have to work as my reasoning for now b/c I want to do this race and to be honest, I want my first half to be a woman's race. I would not be offended if there was a men's race, my sons asked where the Prince race was.

Firstly, since when did men fall out of being part of your peers? A peer is a friend, colleague, and any other human. Unless women aren't human, that's the only explanation I can get out of it. The special olympics is completely different and in my opinion not comparable, in that case, those people should be honored and allowed to compete with others of the same ability. But in this case, it is healthy men and healthy women of different weights, sizes and abilities coming together and running to enjoy ourselves, not separate ourselves because one group feels inferior. Why don't we have heavy weight runners only races or the super skinny only races then?

Also, just to be clear, the Princess is not a women's race. It is a race open to everyone, men or women, but the men are ostracized for being born genetically different than women. Other than that, it is a normal race, just a princess theme.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

In the sport of running, men and women are not considered peers. That's why there is a men's race in the Olympics and a women's race.

 

[sunnygal041]

Not for nothing, I started running a fews years back to get a bit more healthy while having some fun. It was just a personal preference, had nothing to do with gender-focused/specific races. We all run for different reasons, but the tie that binds us all, is just that....we run.

 

[Twoboysnmygirl]

Firstly, since when did men fall out of being part of your peers? A peer is a friend, colleague, and any other human. Unless women aren't human, that's the only explanation I can get out of it. The special olympics is completely different and in my opinion not comparable, in that case, those people should be honored and allowed to compete with others of the same ability. But in this case, it is healthy men and healthy women of different weights, sizes and abilities coming together and running to enjoy ourselves, not separate ourselves because one group feels inferior. Why don't we have heavy weight runners only races or the super skinny only races then?

Also, just to be clear, the Princess is not a women's race. It is a race open to everyone, men or women, but the men are ostracized for being born genetically different than women. Other than that, it is a normal race, just a princess theme.

I meant peer as in physical peer/equal...(and I agree that then where does that stop? Weight? Race? Height?...)

Maybe you are right, as I said, I'm pretty uncomfortable with the whole thing, this was my friend's explanation as she was trying to help me work through it.

I'm glad that the Princess isn't just for women, I just want to DRESS UP and share the experience with fellow Disney freaks. That's it! Female or male, it's fine by me!

In the sport of running, men and women are not considered peers. That's why there is a men's race in the Olympics and a women's race.

This is what I was trying to convey but it seems to me that men and women are not equal in running ability, so having races that are just for each gender seem like a good idea...but maybe not. Maybe they cause too much animosity and separation. I'm unsure!