I’ll go with 2:38. The OT qualifier times used to be like 2:20 and 2:54, which was too easy for the womenz, but there weren’t as many running seriously post collegiately.
2:42 is 10% faster than 3:00, and that feels about right.
Participation rates of men and women are about equal, but there are a lot more men who actually train competitively. So just comparing the same finishing places will give you a skewed perspective.
2:42 is 10% faster than 3:00, and that feels about right.
Participation rates of men and women are about equal, but there are a lot more men who actually train competitively. So just comparing the same finishing places will give you a skewed perspective.
It depends on what you mean by skewed perspective. It also depends on why there are fewer women training competitively. All of this makes the question of equivalence a lot more complicated than it first seems.
For example, if there are fewer competitive women because of some external barrier, like socialization or child-rearing responsibilities, etc., we would expect the depth of the women's field to increase if we remove the barriers.
However, if there are fewer competitive women because of an average psychological or physical difference (something internal or inherent to females), the different depths of the fields would not skew one's perspective on how to compare women and men.
2:42 is 10% faster than 3:00, and that feels about right.
Participation rates of men and women are about equal, but there are a lot more men who actually train competitively. So just comparing the same finishing places will give you a skewed perspective.
It depends on what you mean by skewed perspective. It also depends on why there are fewer women training competitively. All of this makes the question of equivalence a lot more complicated than it first seems.
For example, if there are fewer competitive women because of some external barrier, like socialization or child-rearing responsibilities, etc., we would expect the depth of the women's field to increase if we remove the barriers.
However, if there are fewer competitive women because of an average psychological or physical difference (something internal or inherent to females), the different depths of the fields would not skew one's perspective on how to compare women and men.
I think it's mostly socialization. Boys are pushed to compete in sports from a young age, and while the opportunities available to girls have greatly increased in recent decades, gender roles still exist and sports are still a male-coded activity. In general, girls aren't expected to perform the same way. Obviously the physical differences between men and women are real and explain the 10-12 percent performance gap at the top, but you'd see a lot more depth in women's running if girls were socialized the same way as boys.
It depends on what you mean by skewed perspective. It also depends on why there are fewer women training competitively. All of this makes the question of equivalence a lot more complicated than it first seems.
For example, if there are fewer competitive women because of some external barrier, like socialization or child-rearing responsibilities, etc., we would expect the depth of the women's field to increase if we remove the barriers.
However, if there are fewer competitive women because of an average psychological or physical difference (something internal or inherent to females), the different depths of the fields would not skew one's perspective on how to compare women and men.
I think it's mostly socialization. Boys are pushed to compete in sports from a young age, and while the opportunities available to girls have greatly increased in recent decades, gender roles still exist and sports are still a male-coded activity. In general, girls aren't expected to perform the same way. Obviously the physical differences between men and women are real and explain the 10-12 percent performance gap at the top, but you'd see a lot more depth in women's running if girls were socialized the same way as boys.
I'm not so sure that it's mostly socialization. We've had relative gender equality in sports for several decades, and the male/female performance gaps haven't moved much since the 80s. Some girls and women just aren't interested in playing sports; many gravitate towards other physcial activities like dance and gymnastics (still a sport, but one that is much more popular among girls).
The other thing is that, in a speed/efficiency-based sport like distance running, talent is related to morphology. Not many women are shaped liked elite distance runners. Obviously, the sex performance gap is less with distance running than with many other sports, but this does not mean that the distribution of talent within the male and female category is the same. It's possible that fewer women have elite/sub-elite morphology than men. I don't know if this is the case, but it makes sense on a hypothetical level. While many women with relatively wide hips and large breasts can hit/kick a ball, throw objects, etc. just as well as or better than women with narrow hips and small breasts, they're not going to be as biomechanically efficient, so they're less likely to be sub-elite or elite than somebody with these characteristics. A simple way of saying this is that a straight up and down body is more efficient than a curvy one, and there's good reason to believe that there are more straight up and down men than women. This might lead to a situation where there's a 10-11% difference between the performance of top males and females but a 13-15% difference in performance between those who place, say, 500th or even 1000th in their sex category in a marathon.
It depends on what you mean by skewed perspective. It also depends on why there are fewer women training competitively. All of this makes the question of equivalence a lot more complicated than it first seems.
For example, if there are fewer competitive women because of some external barrier, like socialization or child-rearing responsibilities, etc., we would expect the depth of the women's field to increase if we remove the barriers.
However, if there are fewer competitive women because of an average psychological or physical difference (something internal or inherent to females), the different depths of the fields would not skew one's perspective on how to compare women and men.
I think it's mostly socialization. Boys are pushed to compete in sports from a young age, and while the opportunities available to girls have greatly increased in recent decades, gender roles still exist and sports are still a male-coded activity. In general, girls aren't expected to perform the same way. Obviously the physical differences between men and women are real and explain the 10-12 percent performance gap at the top, but you'd see a lot more depth in women's running if girls were socialized the same way as boys.
Sorry to post multiple times, but I just thought of something. Girls are expected to perform at high levels in activities like dance and gymnastics. Competitive dance is BRUTAL. I know less about gymnastics, but it's obviously very difficult and hard on the body. I've never known a competitive dance coach to hold back. I've attended 3-hour daily practices and performed bleeding and with shin splints. I wanted to do this, but I was also drawn to the beauty, artistry, and femininity of dance.
It is possible that girls just aren't encouraged to run as much, but I strongly suspect that many prefer to channel their drive into other activities.
Our culture is in this really strange place where it's become taboo to talk about non-cultural sex differences. I don't want to suggest that all girls want to do ballet and boys want to play sports, or suggest that none of the difference is socialization. However, I think it's equally harmful to ignore the possibility of sex differences because that leads us to encouraging/borderline pressuring people to do things that they don't like--or to judge themselves harshly for having sex-typical traits and preferences.
The most accurate and realistic answer is 2:42:40. This calculation is based on an article I wrote in Oklahoma Runner many years ago. It uses a formula based on current world-bests rather than rankings or participation comparisons.
It depends on what you mean by skewed perspective. It also depends on why there are fewer women training competitively. All of this makes the question of equivalence a lot more complicated than it first seems.
For example, if there are fewer competitive women because of some external barrier, like socialization or child-rearing responsibilities, etc., we would expect the depth of the women's field to increase if we remove the barriers.
However, if there are fewer competitive women because of an average psychological or physical difference (something internal or inherent to females), the different depths of the fields would not skew one's perspective on how to compare women and men.
I think it's mostly socialization. Boys are pushed to compete in sports from a young age, and while the opportunities available to girls have greatly increased in recent decades, gender roles still exist and sports are still a male-coded activity. In general, girls aren't expected to perform the same way. Obviously the physical differences between men and women are real and explain the 10-12 percent performance gap at the top, but you'd see a lot more depth in women's running if girls were socialized the same way as boys.
People give "socialization" way too much credit. Kids gravitate towards what they like. I've given all my children exposure to a variety of activities. My girls have made it very clear they prefer dance and gymnastics. This has been obvious from a young age. It motivates them and they can't get enough of it. So they're given more opportunities.
My boys love running and team sports. I've tried to encourage my girls, but they're just not interested. We've put my boys in "cool" dance classes with other boys and they absolutely hated it. So we let them choose something else.
Many studies show innate gender differences in preferences from a very young age, even a few weeks old. Ignoring this is weird and regressive.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.