Do men and women deserve equal pay in running?

hey boyz clubbers, got any new locker room thoughts on this topic?

It is getting harder and harder to warrant paying American men for their performances. In the 1970's, there were three men from one track club (Greater Boston) that could run 2:10 on any given day. Now, when the rest of the world has improved to the point where there must be hundreds of marathoners who can go 2:10 or faster, we have one guy born in the U.S. who can do that (Culpepper). It is hard to care about a U.S. male running 2:15 - there over two miles behingd the leaders at Chicago and London. I applaud them for there running as fast as they do, I'm just not sure it is worth much more than that.

16x, make like calixta flockheart and lighten the f*** up.

16x wrote:

we are physically at a disadvantage

Our entire sporting life is consistently disrupted by hormonal and chemistry changes, not to mention what a comeback feels like after pregnancy, childbirth and the constant sleep disruptions.

Actually, you just named a whole slate of reasons for why women should not receieve equal prize money.

Just because someone takes as much "personal satisfaction" in something as a really fast runner does doesn't mean she should be just as handsomely compensated for it. You sound like one of those frigging Penguins who think their presence in a road race is as worthy as Alan Culpepper's.

The fact that women can give a slew of valid reasons for why their performances on the roads in this country (see initial post) are inferior to men's not only in absolute terms, but in relative terms as well does not change the level of reward those performances merit. If the post-collegiate lifestyle most women adopt does not support running at a decent level, then let the pay-outs reflect this. In the sporting world, when you snooze (or get knocked up) you lose.

Fat people are at a natural disadvatage in just about every sport, but we're not rushing to reward any of those f***ers. Fat is a hindrance. Ovaries and breasts are as well; this is biology, and as a consequence women should not be paid on a par with men until their marks are up to snuff.

You may dumbly and inappropriately disagree with me, but at least I didn't resort to the second-grader-ish "If you don't like it, train harder!" mantra.

Manburger wrote:

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

Even that's a poor argument. One could just as easily say that offering any prize money at all alienates guys who run 21:00 for 5k because they don't have a chance in hell of winning any loot.

It is true for 99.9% of women AND men that fundamentally, people don't race on the roads in this country for money - even the relatively fast ones. Even the road whores who can "blaze" a 30:30 10k certainly don't get INTO the sport on account of being able to win a few groceries, they do it to compete. Women should be rewarded is their performances are on a par with men, not because of 3000 years of suppressed opportunities - the fact that they're encouraged to participate is "compensation" enough. Throwing money at shitty performances is like handing out a job affirmative-action-style to an underqualified minority who then f***s it up (not because he's a minority, because he's underqualified) and becomes a source of resentment, thereby setting back the very cause his appointment was designed to advance.

If women quit going to races because they can't win $250 for a 39:00 10K anymore, f*** 'em. And I'd say the same about men running 33:00.