Do men and women deserve equal pay in running?

OK, besides the ridiculous website and the grammar insults, there was some content to Equal Pay??/Statistic's argument.

Namely, that if you compare the numbers, a woman who beats the same percentage of her field as a guy beats his field will end up placing higher (as in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)compared to the other women than the guy did compared to the other men. Thus she will get more money, which is not fair. That's not a bad argument, in my opinion.

16x and tara and anyone else who thinks that women should receive equal prize money - can you present us with a good argument why? The desire not to alienate the fastest growing group of runners is the best one we've heard so far (is this true by the way?). What are the other good reasons?

he's right

if you go to google and type "sat scores male vs female", it is the first one that pops up

It must be the end of the school year as the little boys are out with a vengence. My god, you are comparing apples to oranges. Women compete against women, and men against men, unless you are one of those guys hanging around the top women hoping to get a little air time and try to outkick them the final 100. They are only running at the same time due to logistics of course management. Anyone saying the women should beat the men head-to-head to win money are very misguided. It could just as easily be said that if me want more prize money then run a 4.2 40 and play football. Apples and oranges just like men and women racing. Men having more of a following is also a very weak argument. First, running is followed by very few people to begin with. I would bet there are far more people in the mainstream who would know women runners far more than men. I believe more lay sports fans would know Marion Jones, Deena Drossin, Marla Runyan, Suzy FH, Regina Jacobs, Gail Devers. What men might they know? Mo Greene maybe & they would probably know Alan Webb's name, but wouldn't be sure where from. Why would this men/women apple/orange topic even come up? What is someone trying to gain?

In terms of public relations value, of really delivering the goods to sponsors in terms of performance and interviews, Paula Radcliffe is the most worthy runner right now, far moreso than any male runner.

But if you're talking about depth between the two genders, well, you wouldn't except a guy who does a 2:25 marathoner, 20 minutes slower than Khannouchi, to be asking for much in the way of cash at major marathons, but there's still plenty of demand for 2:35 women, 20 minutes slower thnan Radcliffe.

There is an impliance here that the women are putting forth less effort because the field is smaller. That is false (assuming everyone is trying).

There is an impliance that the size of the field has something to do with the quality of the event. That is false or else the folks doing the invitational events are fooling a lot of us.

Accept the apparently valid biological fact that men can run faster than women--now consider that either gender, without the presence of the other gender, will try (compete) just as hard.

Supposedly the topic is about the competition, the level of effort from the available field, and the results. For the bias of effort to validate the unequal pay, you will need to adjust all prizes for relational field size with an additional factor for course difficulty and how the finish times compare to course (and world) rcords or bests.

You are talking about the runners capable of winning something on your course on the day of the event--all the statistical manipulation will not change the fact that all competitors competed on the same course in the same event--that is what the prize if for--to decrease an award because of gender is just a continuation of an inner fear of recognizing other people's abilities without qualifications.

NO!!! I won?t listen !!! NO!!!!!!!!!!! You are all the same guy, you are all Catman, a women-hating nutbag! I won?t read any of your posts!!! NONE!!! WAHHHHHH!!! I can?t hear you!!!! I CAN?T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!1

WOMYN RULE, MEN DROOL!!! THERE, I said it. We are under-privileged in everything, the penis is a weapon, bras are shackles, PMS is million times worse than anything that any man has ever experienced?..but it doesn?t make us nuts?no that is male propaganda, men are EEEEEEEEEVil?.. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil I tells ya, they are all rapists, they all hate us, why?? WHY??????? The vagina monologues was better than ANYTHING that hack Shakespeare wrote?people only give him respect because he had a penis?.if he were a she?.no respect at all, NONE!! Women are the most abused, mistreated, unappreciated group in the world, but the smartest, toughest people on EARTH!! ON EARTH I TELL YOU!!!! I AM A WOMAN, HERE ME ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(damn it, I broke a nail. WHY is this happening. WAHHHH?I just did my nails too, this is NO FAIR. A man must have designed this keyboard, it?s a MAN?S FAULT THIS HAPPENED!!!)

No...no one has said anything at all about effort. We're talking about performance.

Yeah, I guess so. So you're saying, taking this to the extreme, that if there were a race with 100 males and 4 women, and the 4 women are world class runners and the 10 males are shmoes, that the whole "percentages" argument falls apart? OK, agreed. After all, the 3rd male finisher will have beaten 97% percent of the men, whereas as the 3rd female finisher will have beaten only 25% of the women's field. But it is possible that the female finisher actually produced a better performance.

You're right, in theory. But in practice that never happens. The male and female races tend to attract the same caliber of runner (ie, national class, local class, etc.)

Again (like in the first statement), you're way off here. No one is saying that that because men are faster, they should get more money. Only that almost always a 3rd place man is faster compared to other men than a 3rd place woman is compared to other women. See the difference?

And again, no one has said anything about effort levels.

I know this was a pointless post, but I didn't think you understood the topic.

Is "impliance" actually a word?

well, there has been enough name calling and getting off the subject that i'm not sure that a valid point can be made at this point, but i will attempt at this point. i do think there have been some valid arguements for women getting paid equally to what men get paid in road races. i would say that since the money runners gets paid come from sponsors, and the money the sponsors gets from consumers, that the runners who bring in the most potential consumers that those runners should get a portion of the revenue the generate. and by that i mean, if a woman competing well brings in women runners who are wiling to spend money, that woman is generating money for the sponsor and therefore should be compensated. however, that does not necessarily touch on what this debate really seems to be centered around and that is that woman are getting paid more for a lower quality performance, and that there is less depth in women's running.

first, i think its important to say that, as someone pointed out earlier, its not as if woman do not perform as well as men out of laziness, or lack of desire, or lack of talent. i think to make the arguement that they do assumes that by their nature women are inferior to men, and since we do not have any evidence that this is true, and i think we can all agree that women are not inferior to men so therefore there must be another reason for it. or several. one important reason for women's performance not being up to the level that men's is, is that women have not been in the sport as long as men. women were not even allowed to race the marathon until recently, fearing it would cause death, or worse falling out of reproductive organs. (heaven forbid) so just as ultras do not have the depth that the standard marathon has, due to the fact that they have not been around as long, women have not been in the sport as long, and therefore have not had the chance to develop the depth that men have.

next, i also think it is important to note that boys/men are encouraged to participate in sports more than girls/women are. this has changed in recent years, but i think the arguement could be made that women were not encouraged to participate in sports very much until the last generation or two. so once again, there has been a lack of development, and also a lack of participation by women. this causes there to be less positive examples to look up to, in addition, to once again causing there to be less women who run to begin with. also, i'm sure that many will disagree with me on this, but in my experience male athelets have better access to good coaching and equiptment. men's sports are seen as "real" and therefore more resources go to men's sports. as anyone who has, for the first time in their life had a high quality coach can attest, having a good coach can make a huge difference in a runner's success. this is not to say that there are not women who have good coaches, just that men have access to the good ones more often. as a side note, women in many areas have had no sports programs until title nine, also adding to a derth of female atheletes, but let's not turn this into a title nine debate.

my next major arguement is that men are genetically equipted with bigger hearts, muscles, ect. this is because for the most part men are made for hunting, getting around ect. women, from a genetic standpoint, or a physcial standpoint are better equipt for having children. so, women are at a genetic disadvantage. but, really, i think men need to get over this. ok, so you're born with bodies that can move through space faster than women's. this may make you faster runners, but it does not make you morally superior.

and, lastly, i'd like to say that women who take home prize money are beating the competition who show up on a given day. men are doing the same. it is not a woman's fault if less speedy people show up, just as its not a man's fault if more speedy men show up. if you come in first for your gender on a gvien day, you have beaten those who showed up. nothing more, nothing less. a woman's victory should not be considered less because there was less competition. as i've outlined above, she had a lot more to beat to get there in the first place.

Mr. Statistics don't lie. Click on the website you used to quote your legitimate "stats".

Look in the left hand corner, it says, Father's Manifesto, the stats came from this group, not from a government agency appointed to gather stats concerning education.

Go to the Father's Manifeto website, I did. Here is a sample of the "factual information" found on the site. Go there, read more. Either your irresponsible in the sources you use, or you read this stuff and believe it. Feel free to inform us of which it is. Remember, this was from the source that you gave us.

From the Father's Manifesto:

SOME OF THE MANIFESTATIONS EVIDENCING THE DESTRUCTION AND DECAY OF OUR SOCIETY BECAUSE IT IS DOMINATED BY WOMEN:

* Crime is on the increase. *The amount, rate and nature has reached the critical stage*.

* The age of criminals is *increasingly younger*, the crimes more violent and senseless.

* Children are bringing guns and knives to school and killing class mates, teachers, visiting parents, and any others who get in their way.

* Campus police and metal detectors are becoming commonplace in our middle schools.

* Neighborhood gangs are proliferating to an extent that is out of control.

* People are afraid to leave their homes. Gangs have virtually taken over neighborhoods.

* The gangs are recruiting children as young as 9 and 10 years of age.

* The "gang bangers" are mowing down small children -- whom they don't even know -- in school yards and on the street.

* We are *at war* with our young who are practically in a state of anarchy if not outright rebellion.

* One national talk show hostess summed it up quite eloquently:

"We have a generation of battle hardened kids, not only in the inner city but in the rural and suburban areas who have been

desensitized to violence and grief, it's all around them."

* Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. In addition 1/3 of births are by unwed teen age girls.

* Over 90% of the filings for divorce are by women.

* 3/4 of all children in juvenile detention and 3/4 of all convicts doing "hard time" are from mother only homes. This is revealing.

* The bias against fathers in our divorce courts is legendary.

* Mothers get custody over 90% of the time -- and proceed to excise the father from the life of his children -- with the blessing of the judicial system.

*Women just can't cut it as rearors of children*.

More from statistics don't lie's factual website he has quoted concerning boys superiority in education. Make sure if you want to skip over, you read the final line. Remeber stats - this is who you are quoting for your so-called factual information.

Father's Manifesto

Searching For the Positive Side of Feminism

One century after American women gained legal rights, which "corrected" the complaint of the feminists at Seneca Falls in 1848, they have gained nothing and lost much. Marriage, family, and children have been trivialized, 36 million future American citizens were tossed in the human trash dump of abortion, and feminists can point to absolutely nothing with pride and say: "It was all worth it".

The feminist complaint in Seneca Falls was: "He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes, with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement."

What self-respecting American man in his right mind would have accepted such an absurd complaint? Which man who voted to "remedy" this condition didn't intuitively know that ignorant women making such a spurious complaint would start a process which would increase the divorce rate America's mothers by fifty fold, would increase the rate at which women are raped 50 fold and the rate at which they are murdered ten fold, would increase the rate at which their husbands and fathers and sons are imprisoned ten fold?

What is wrong with American men today that they don't see the tragedies set in motion by giving women legal rights?

Will people just stop posting to this stupid thread! The more you post, the longer it takes to get off the front page! Also, teacher, you seemed to have missed an entire paragraph dealing with those SAT scores:

Do a little reading before you post. Besides, the more often you post those anti-feminist slogans, the more people are going to think YOU are anti-feminist.

NOBODY RESPOND TO THIS SO IT WILL DISAPPEAR FROM THE FRONT PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry woop, I want this to disappear as much as you. However, there was a decent discussion of this on another message board that some people may be interested in. No rude comments, no bashing, just decent arguments.

http://web1.nyrrc.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000918.html

Yeth, "impliance" is a whurd. I added it to my spell checker (or spell-checker) this afternoon and have submitted it to the OED for consideration.

I'll be more careful with my posting next time. I was just trying to offer the same level of claptrap nonsense most of this thread has been doing--or maybe it is nonsensical claptrap that needs the Rev. C. L. Dodgson to explain it.

The idea that one gender or the other is deserving of more money because of some illogically presented line of drivel---hmmmmm, sorry, that's where I came in.

#1: Anyone trying to present an argument regarding comparing men to women head to head is an idiot. That is a fact.

#2: "I believe more lay sports fans would know Marion Jones, Deena Drossin, Marla Runyan, Suzy FH, Regina Jacobs, Gail Devers." If you are going to say that running is followed by very few people (and it is), then you can't drop names like Deena Drossin, Marla Runyan, Suzy, Regina and Devers, because people just don't know who they are. People have heard of Marion Jones because of the incredibly Oly press. The ONLY people most people have heard of are Marion, MJ (retired), Mo, and possibly Dragila. No one know who Deena Drossin is and no one know who Alan Culpepper, Meb or BK is. To say that casual fans have heard of the distance runners is foolish. Go to work tomorrow and ask EVERYONE in the building in an unbiased manner if they have heard of these people by name. They haven't. Maybe 1-5% have heard of Marion or MO.

#3: I agree that men and women should be paid the same amount for their places in road racing. This doesn't mean that I think that there is the same depth in road races between the sexes, because there isn't. Track races, (especially sprinters) are more equal. If we are talking about local road races, there obviously isn't even a comparison. More men take sub-elite and non-elite racing more seriously than women. I believe this to be a fact. If anyone does not believe this, please speak up. However, I think 99% of this has nothing to do with making a living running: if you are good enough to make a living running, that's great. To do this however, you need to be exceptional, regardless of sex. If you are a man running 30 minutes for 10k, you aren't going to be living a very lucrative lifestyle. If you are a women running the female equivalent to 30 minutes (no idea), and you make $200 dollars more in that race, who really cares. That's great. In either case, it can't be your main source of income, so you have to be doing it for the love of running or for personal satisfaction. Therefore, it isn't important who makes more.

#4: "It must be the end of the school year as the little boys are out with a vengence. My god, you are comparing apples to oranges. Women compete against women, and men against men, unless you are one of those guys hanging around the top women hoping to get a little air time and try to outkick them the final 100."

If you are "one of those guys hanging around with the top women", it doesn't always mean that you are "hoping to get a little air time and try to outkick them the final 100" If you mean top women in an elite race, the men with the top women are serious runners as well. If you are running 2:20-2:25 for a marathon, it certainly doesn't mean you are just relying on natural "male" talent and waiting around to show up a women. You are a serious runner. There are very few people in the entire world who can honestly say they can "jog" a 2:20 marathon and outkick a women at the end just to get some TV time. And those who can, don't need or want the air time, because they can run 2:10 and get recognition that way. I realize that I may be putting words in your mouth, arthur, because you never mentioned marathons or elite races, so don't take it personal. I agree that there are a lot of 17:00-18:00 local 5k's that people run that men hang with the lead women and do everything in their power to not get beat, but let's make sure that everyone realizes there is a difference between a weekend warrior outkicking a women in the 18:00 local 5k to a man running 2:21 and beating a women in a marathon. If I was running 2:20, I would attempt to beat the hell out of anyone in the end, I wouldn't give a shit what their gender was.

2:22 SUCKS, that's all there is to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5/8/2003 8:22AM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

2:22 sucks, 2:20 sucks.... i don't believe you're a 'good' marathon runner until you run 2:15. i don't think that's too far off people. A girl is running that. think about it. the marathon trials is NOT an accomplishment so dont' fool yourselves.

Finally, a well stated, well thought out, and purely logical response.

Thank you.

Monkeybone, you are too funny. Here are some beauts:

?first, i think its important to say that, as someone pointed out earlier, its not as if woman do not perform as well as men out of laziness, or lack of desire, or lack of talent.? Couple that statement with. ?i think to make the arguement that they do assumes that by their nature women are inferior to men, and since we do not have any evidence that this is true, and i think we can all agree that women are not inferior to men so therefore there must be another reason for it. or several. one important reason for women's performance not being up to the level that men's is, is that women have not been in the sport as long as men. ? And then you give several other reasons why women are not as good as runners as men and they all have to do with the idea that women have been held back/discouraged/lacked opportunity to compete for many years. You are saying that it?s not a talent issue/it?s not that women are, on the average, inherently worse athletes, it is just that they are ?late to the game.? Give them a few years, and they will be equal to men in sports. OK, we will buy that argument for a moment.

NOW, couple THOSE ABOVE statements with your next line of ?reasoning? : ?my next major arguement is that men are genetically equipted with bigger hearts, muscles, ect. this is because for the most part men are made for hunting, getting around ect. women, from a genetic standpoint, or a physcial standpoint are better equipt for having children. so, women are at a genetic disadvantage.? Do you think before you type, or is this just some stream of consciousness coming from you? You just refuted you entire earlier line of reasoning, now saying that men ARE more talented, and that they ARE SUPERIOR NATURAL ATHLETES. But at first you were saying, no, no, no, that is not the case. Men?s superiority in sports is all due to better coaches, opportunities, etc etc. WHICH IS IT?? And if you MEANT to say, it?s a little of both, then SAY THAT. You did not. You started off saying that women are in no way inferior to men, and that men?s success was ALL about their social conditioning/opportunities in sports, and then went ahead and completely contradicted yourself. But women always want to have their cake and to eat it too, so I am not surprised.

I leave with your BEST comment: ?but, really, i think men need to get over this. ok, so you're born with bodies that can move through space faster than women's. this may make you faster runners, but it does not make you morally superior.?

WHAT?!?!?! Whoever argued that men are ?morally superior?, and even if someone did believe that, who tied it to their physical fitness?!??! Clearly you, like many women here, are brainwashed to think all men look down on women for being, on the average, physically inferior athletes. We do not. It appears that YOU need to ?get over this? (?this? being that men are naturally better athletes on the average).

Hahaha! Great post 1600x!