Women's only racing -- Taking back my opinion....

[roomthreeseventeen]

After running the NYRR Women's Mini 10k this weekend (for the second time), I think I have to take back my previous opinion that I didn't like or see the point of women's races.

You see, this year, we ran in memory of Grete Waitz, who passed away from cancer a few months ago. Grete won the NYC marathon NINE times. One of the women who spoke before the starting gun was Kathrine Switzer, who is of course famous for being the first woman to run the Boston Marathon. And I ran with 4750 women ages 13-85, including 2 wheelchair athletes, Rosalie Ames and 79 year old Sister Mary Gladys.

Normally, this would have been a PR course for me, but coming off an injury, I had to take it easy. And so while I wasn't focused on racing, I was focused on the women around me who were racing.

New York City has such an amazingly diverse population, in respect to race, age, sexual orientation, lifestyle, politics, etc. But the one thing that all of these women had in common was that we used to be discouraged, even banned, from participating in the sport that we love. Women were told their uterus would fall out, that they shouldn't run further than 10k. When the first NYRR Women's Mini was run, the race featured Playboy bunnies as cheerleaders.

So, to me, there was something extremely powerful about the unique experience that actually changed my mind about the need for women's only races. (We did run with six men, including Grete's husband, coach, and some relatives, who were running in her memory specifically.)

It doesn't mean that I agree with the discrimination. If men want to put on their own race, that's cool with me. But I just may be convinced to run the Princess or the Tinkerbell Half someday, and just be proud to be a girl runner in a skirt!

 

[tmbacon]

Beautifully written. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I've never run a women's only race, but might think about giving it a go sometime.

 

[Bephus]

I have run in a few Women-centered races and I too like the feeling of solidarity and support that comes from these runs.
I also love running in regular races, there is just a different feeling.
I do not have a problem at all with men-centered races, and there still are races that are much more populated by men than women, like the muddy buddy races and most trail races.
Well written post! Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[FireDancer]

The problem though Amy is that while you and some individual women would have no problems with races that didn't welcome women societally it would be viewed as sexist. I could see the headlines now. I realize in the past women were excluded and it wasn't anymore right then to exclude women then it is to exclude men now but the past is the past.

I'm sure I'll be in the minority but I can't stand the double standard. Even the men-centric races still allow women to run as equal participants, don't penalize them by putting them further back in corrals if they ran a fast enough qualifying time to be higher, don't tell them that only men will receive age group awards, or anything like that. If I did find out a race did any of those things I wouldn't run it no matter how nice the comradery was.

 

[jennypenny]

Frank, I agree with your position on this (and I've said so on other threads), but MAN U ??? Ugh, you're killing me. You seemed like such a smart guy. As a Liverpool fan, I'm going to have to rethink my opinion.

(I guess it could be worse--you could be a Chelsea fan)

 

[DisneyParrothead]

Frank, I agree with your position on this (and I've said so on other threads), but MAN U ??? Ugh, you're killing me. You seemed like such a smart guy. As a Liverpool fan, I'm going to have to rethink my opinion.

(I guess it could be worse--you could be a Chelsea fan)

Hot dog! We can out number him

 

[slp1650]

The problem though Amy is that while you and some individual women would have no problems with races that didn't welcome women societally it would be viewed as sexist. I could see the headlines now. I realize in the past women were excluded and it wasn't anymore right then to exclude women then it is to exclude men now but the past is the past.

I'm sure I'll be in the minority but I can't stand the double standard. Even the men-centric races still allow women to run as equal participants, don't penalize them by putting them further back in corrals if they ran a fast enough qualifying time to be higher, don't tell them that only men will receive age group awards, or anything like that. If I did find out a race did any of those things I wouldn't run it no matter how nice the comradery was.

I want to start off by saying that you're completely right. If some of the standards in some of the women-only races were applied to a men's only there would be feminist calls of sexism and what not. It's an unfortunate sad fact. I would also be completely fine with a mens-only race and would support any of my guy friends doing it as equally as they support me.

However, that's how our society is today. We can't set up anything for one gender or one race without calls of sexism or racism. There is always someone who's going to complain and start calls of equality even if there is a perfectly good reason why it's restricted.

The double edged sword doesn't only go for men being called sexist. It also goes for women in certain cases. I was a swimmer and our guys could do one thing, but heaven forbid the girls do the same thing. We had one case where the water polo/swimming men made a calendar in both high school AND college in their and of course women couldn't because who knows what type of issues the schools could be slapped with.

So are the runs far? No. Is there really anything we can do about it? No. So we can continue to ***** and moan about this topic constantly, but in all honesty I'm tired of it and I would like to let the women who run women-only races and men who do men-only things enjoy them without controversy... at least for a bit of time.

 

[Ms. Toad Esq.]

The problem though Amy is that while you and some individual women would have no problems with races that didn't welcome women societally it would be viewed as sexist. I could see the headlines now. I realize in the past women were excluded and it wasn't anymore right then to exclude women then it is to exclude men now but the past is the past.

The definition of sexism, according to the ever reliable wikipedia, is "is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas."

So when you exclude women from a race, it is sexist, because it is a practice that in recent history existed because people believed being a woman made you weak, and therefore unable to participate in physical competitions. Discouraging men from entering a race in order to encourage female participation is not sexist, because it doesn't imply that men can't or shouldn't achieve at physical competitions - it implies that a female centered space will simply be less intimidating for women to join. And that's the point - getting more women comfortable competing in sports activities.

The problem with past discrimination is that it isn't just as simple as saying "the past is the past." The past has ramifications for the future. Little girls are still taught to be nice and play with dolls, and little boys are encouraged to be more physically active. One way to remedy this imbalance is female centered sports events.

For these reasons, I think labeling female centered sporting events as "sexist" is problematic and minimizes the experiences of those women who actually have experienced marginalization in society at all levels - both in sporting events, in court rooms, in the work place, and at home.

 

[MikeofRose&Mike]

Amy,
I am glad you enjoyed the race.

 

[fashionista311]

you know as far as we have come in terms of sexism in sports....i still think we have a look way to go, still. women are being told every day by their doctors that it is unsafe to run/exercise through a normal, healthy pregnancy. sure the ratio to male/female in distance events are pretty close in the us....but take a look at the paris semi-marathon site where they give you a breakdown of the field...only about 20 percent of the field is female. the tri world is still very largely dominated by males, especially in long distance events. and there is very much a prevalent sterotype that athletic woman are "masculine"

sure the womens-only race market might be a bit over-saturated - but i do think there is still a need

 

[FireDancer]

The definition of sexism, according to the ever reliable wikipedia, is "is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas."

So when you exclude women from a race, it is sexist, because it is a practice that in recent history existed because people believed being a woman made you weak, and therefore unable to participate in physical competitions. Discouraging men from entering a race in order to encourage female participation is not sexist, because it doesn't imply that men can't or shouldn't achieve at physical competitions - it implies that a female centered space will simply be less intimidating for women to join. And that's the point - getting more women comfortable competing in sports activities.

The problem with past discrimination is that it isn't just as simple as saying "the past is the past." The past has ramifications for the future. Little girls are still taught to be nice and play with dolls, and little boys are encouraged to be more physically active. One way to remedy this imbalance is female centered sports events.

For these reasons, I think labeling female centered sporting events as "sexist" is problematic and minimizes the experiences of those women who actually have experienced marginalization in society at all levels - both in sporting events, in court rooms, in the work place, and at home.

Those are a lot of words to say double standard are super terrific.

 

[princessbride6205]

Amy - Thanks for sharing your experience. Rightly or wrongly, I do see the value in a women-focused race (as long as men are still allowed to enter). I've enjoyed both types of events, and I'm glad we have the options.

 

[Ms. Toad Esq.]

Those are a lot of words to say double standard are super terrific.

"Double standard" assumes the baseline for participation in sports is the same for both and women. As fashionista311 pointed out, the baseline is not the same - men are encouraged to be more active, and women are discouraged from doing so. So it's not a different standard for two equally advantaged groups (which we could agree would be unfair), it's trying to bring women up to the same advantaged place as men. And I think that is terrific.

 

[SAHDad]

"Double standard" assumes the baseline for participation in sports is the same for both and women. As fashionista311 pointed out, the baseline is not the same - men are encouraged to be more active, and women are discouraged from doing so. So it's not a different standard for two equally advantaged groups (which we could agree would be unfair), it's trying to bring women up to the same advantaged place as men. And I think that is terrific.

That then creates a question - given that Switzer wrote (in 2009) that, in terms of numbers, there are more women running than men in the United States - at what point can you say "Enough. Women have now achieved parity with men in this area, and special programs are no longer needed here."

When women are 60% of the half-marathon runners, it is justification to create more women-centric races. When men are 60% of the marathon runners, it is justification to create more women-centric races.

OP - I'm glad you had a great time.

 

[fashionista311]

That then creates a question - given that Switzer wrote (in 2009) that, in terms of numbers, there are more women running than men in the United States - at what point can you say "Enough. Women have now achieved parity with men in this area, and special programs are no longer needed here."

When women are 60% of the half-marathon runners, it is justification to create more women-centric races. When men are 60% of the marathon runners, it is justification to create more women-centric races.

OP - I'm glad you had a great time.

I think the numbers are deceiving. I think there are a lot more women who are walking these events or walk/running. but as you get into the more serious runners, women are still definitely a minority. I ran the race that Amy is referring to as well - and it can be used as a good example. NYRR usually assigns bib numbers based on your best pace, and you are assigned a color based on the field. My best pace is around 8:40, and I'm usually middle-of-the-pack in the 5000-6000s, depending on the size of the field. My bib for the mini was in the 3000s, and my friend whose best pace is tad faster than me - I think she's 8:20 - was in the 2000s (meaning there was only one corral between her and the elites). Obviously women are going to be slower than men to an extent...but for an 8:20 mile to put you that close to the elites, I think is very telling. Are less women capable of running 7-8 min/miles then men? I don't think so. But I think women definitely face different pressures than the men do, and depending on what kind of circles you run in....they definitely are more discouraged to run the higher mileage weeks required to reach those kind of speeds. at least that's my theory based on my experiences, anyways. Like I said I do think women have made amazing, awesome strides in this sport but I still think we do have a ways to go. And that's not even counting the double standards that are never going to change (it's always going to be less safe for women to run in the dark than men, men are always going to have lower race times than women, etc)

 

[FFigawi]

And that's not even counting the double standards that are never going to change (it's always going to be less safe for women to run in the dark than men, men are always going to have lower race times than women, etc)

Why is it a double standard that men are going to have lower race times than women? I'd say that's more a fact of biology and physiology than a double standard. The fastest men are generally going to be faster than the fastest women because they have different muscle structure, not because of some double standard. This difference is less important for the very long ultra events, where endurance becomes more of a factor than pure muscle and speed.

 

[cloudnut220]

So my local striders club actually has a men's only race. It's a 5k with a very long tradition (it was the group's original race). There is a women's event that is a half hour after the men's event. But they are completely separate, which I thought was interesting.

I don't have a problem with men focused or women focused events, as long as the other sex is still able to run. In the case of the striders event, both sexes have an option.

The reason I think women's events are so popular though is because event organizers look at women and see $$. I know this is not true for every woman, but I would bet, on average, a woman spends more money on official race gear and more at the expo. And I would also bet that women are more likely to want to run in groups, so if one registers she convinces a group of her friends to do it too. I really think it's pure marketing.

 

[FireDancer]

I don't have a problem with men focused or women focused events, as long as the other sex is still able to run. In the case of the striders event, both sexes have an option.

I have absolutely no problem with this provided:

• There is no handicapping (meaning you don't get docked or advanced corral places because of your gender). You get into the corral you qualify for. If I can run a 90 minute half and a woman can run a 90 minute half we start at the same time in the same coral.
• Both sexes are eligible for the same awards (overall and age group) and finisher's medals if they are presented. There is absolutely no reason not to considering you are not competing against each other for these awards.

I don't care about having a gender-centric theme or marketing.

 

[SAHDad]

I have absolutely no problem with this provided:

• There is no handicapping (meaning you don't get docked or advanced corral places because of your gender). You get into the corral you qualify for. If I can run a 90 minute half and a woman can run a 90 minute half we start at the same time in the same coral.
• Both sexes are eligible for the same awards (overall and age group) and finisher's medals if they are presented. There is absolutely no reason not to considering you are not competing against each other for these awards.

I don't care about having a gender-centric theme or marketing.

Exactly. If the Tink and the Princess did not charge me the same entry fee as DW, but dock me a corral, and deny me any chance at age awards, I wouldn't care what the theme or marketing was. (I get the shirt issue - I have said so before, and will say it again - if small races, with less than 1k participants, can get fitted shirts for both men and women, surely Disney can do no less.)

But - if they charge me the same as DW, I do not think it is unreasonable to be treated in the same manner as DW.

 

[stampingoddess]

The reason I think women's events are so popular though is because event organizers look at women and see $$. I know this is not true for every woman, but I would bet, on average, a woman spends more money on official race gear and more at the expo. And I would also bet that women are more likely to want to run in groups, so if one registers she convinces a group of her friends to do it too. I really think it's pure marketing.

I couldn't agree with you more. If these women's oriented races were hugely profitable then we wouldn't be seeing such an explosion in their growth. Likewise I'm convinced that if a race organizer could figure out a way to make a men's oriented race as profitable they would do it in a heartbeat.