That's not sexism though is it ? It's just one event interfering with another because of poor organization. If the women went first and they had given them an insufficient head start and a man...
That's not sexism though is it ?
It's just one event interfering with another because of poor organization.
If the women went first and they had given them an insufficient head start and a man caught up to them, they would have stopped him too.
I guess the only mistake here is that the organizers misjudged how fast/slow they would be.
The alternative would be to make a unisex race. But that would most likely keep women from winning prizes and that would be unfair.
The outrage is that the women's race was stopped at all. For things like marathon runs, long cross-country skiing events, triathons, and so on everyone can share the same course. There's strong...
Exemplary
The outrage is that the women's race was stopped at all.
For things like marathon runs, long cross-country skiing events, triathons, and so on everyone can share the same course. There's strong cultures of letting faster people pass, whoever they may be, just like cars in different classes are let through in the Le Mans 24 hour race.
That means women and men running together or biking together happens all the time.
If the genders were reversed, having women run first and men catching up, the men would just run past like always and nothing would happen. It's unthinkable that the men's race would ever be stopped. The organizers might hear that they got the separation wrong when two pelotons met, but that's it.
Stopping the race though? It's a tremendous scandal, like when tennis player Andy Murray has repeatedly been asked to comment on some male player being the first to x titles at y tournament and him having to point out that a woman or several woman have already accomplished that feat, or retain their records by good margins.
This is about taking woman's sports seriously. we're almost a fifth into the 22nd century, and organizers and some sporting bodies themselves haven't caught on yet.
Not stopping the women's race would be even stupider than their mistake of starting the race too early, it would be totally unfair for the other women in the race. This has nothing to do with...
Not stopping the women's race would be even stupider than their mistake of starting the race too early, it would be totally unfair for the other women in the race.
This has nothing to do with sexism, the biggest part of bicycle races is drafting and how being first means you hit the most air. If the lead woman could reach the men's slipstream it completely changes the racing dynamics of being in first vs following the group.
Any examples of men catching up and just running past? I believe what you're saying is true I just like having examples I can point to in case I'm arguing with someone else
Any examples of men catching up and just running past? I believe what you're saying is true I just like having examples I can point to in case I'm arguing with someone else
That is too much of a guess, does that have anything to back it, other than the general presence of sexism itself? @Papaya Is this really true? If women and men that have similar overall...
If the genders were reversed, having women run first and men catching up, the men would just run past like always and nothing would happen. It's unthinkable that the men's race would ever be stopped. The organizers might hear that they got the separation wrong when two pelotons met, but that's it.
That is too much of a guess, does that have anything to back it, other than the general presence of sexism itself?
The alternative would be to make a unisex race. But that would most likely keep women from winning prizes and that would be unfair.
Is this really true? If women and men that have similar overall performance were matched, would there be any categories which wouldn't be promiscuous? (None of these are rhetorical questions, I do mean them. See this post I made a moment ago.)
That's not sexism though is it ?
It's just one event interfering with another because of poor organization.
If the women went first and they had given them an insufficient head start and a man caught up to them, they would have stopped him too.
I guess the only mistake here is that the organizers misjudged how fast/slow they would be.
The alternative would be to make a unisex race. But that would most likely keep women from winning prizes and that would be unfair.
The outrage is that the women's race was stopped at all.
For things like marathon runs, long cross-country skiing events, triathons, and so on everyone can share the same course. There's strong cultures of letting faster people pass, whoever they may be, just like cars in different classes are let through in the Le Mans 24 hour race.
That means women and men running together or biking together happens all the time.
If the genders were reversed, having women run first and men catching up, the men would just run past like always and nothing would happen. It's unthinkable that the men's race would ever be stopped. The organizers might hear that they got the separation wrong when two pelotons met, but that's it.
Stopping the race though? It's a tremendous scandal, like when tennis player Andy Murray has repeatedly been asked to comment on some male player being the first to x titles at y tournament and him having to point out that a woman or several woman have already accomplished that feat, or retain their records by good margins.
This is about taking woman's sports seriously. we're almost a fifth into the 22nd century, and organizers and some sporting bodies themselves haven't caught on yet.
Not stopping the women's race would be even stupider than their mistake of starting the race too early, it would be totally unfair for the other women in the race.
This has nothing to do with sexism, the biggest part of bicycle races is drafting and how being first means you hit the most air. If the lead woman could reach the men's slipstream it completely changes the racing dynamics of being in first vs following the group.
Any examples of men catching up and just running past? I believe what you're saying is true I just like having examples I can point to in case I'm arguing with someone else
That is too much of a guess, does that have anything to back it, other than the general presence of sexism itself?
@Papaya
Is this really true? If women and men that have similar overall performance were matched, would there be any categories which wouldn't be promiscuous? (None of these are rhetorical questions, I do mean them. See this post I made a moment ago.)