That’s a distinction without a difference for sub-elite women who, at that time, were being impacted in exactly the same way as sub-elite men are now. And that doesn’t change the fact that the female mass start winner, many times over the last 15 years (including this year), has had a story very similar to this year’s male mass start winner and has at least infrequently (and possibly never?) been highlighted in the same way by LetsRun.
I strongly disagree that “the separate men’s elite start was done not with any positive intention to promote men’s running.” Derek Yoreks are bad for the sport, and this change eliminated that possibility. Races having the ability to vet their elite fields is also good for clean sport (doubly so at Abbott World Marathon Majors where they invest extensively in OOC testing). These were positives for male pros. Did they come with a negative for a few dozen male sub-elite runners? Yes. But to say there were no positive outcomes for men’s running as a whole, full stop, doesn't ring true.
Sometimes, in order for things to be better for everyone, someone ends up worse off. I acknowledge that somewhere between about 5 and 20 sub-elite males who choose to run Boston are made worse off by this decision. You guys famously ask, "What about the sport?" all the time. This decision is better for the sport; it just makes things worse for your core demographic and so you're amplifying and advocating for their complaints. That's exactly the sort of bias that you regularly ask others to overcome in the name of the good of the sport. If you can't see that then it shows a bias in that you conflate what's good for sub-elite males with what's good for the sport (over what's good for sub-elite females, among others).
An Erin Strout article in women's running sums up very well why, if there are going to be a limited number of elite women in the elite start (which, for logistical and safety reasons with their extensive lead vehicle procession, the BAA has decided there is going to be), the elite men's start should be limited to a similar number:
"I was among the first to say last year that the women who started in wave one shouldn’t have received paychecks. The fact was, they didn’t run the same race as the athletes who started 28 minutes ahead of them. Them’s the rules, you know? However, a valid point was made as a result—that the men of comparable ability had a legal chance to crack the top 15 and run for the money, and the women did not. Something had to change.
It’s been suggested that the answer isn’t to divide the men the same way as the women, but to put the elite women back in the mixed-gender open wave or soften the qualifier to add more women to the elite category. This year, the BAA has increased the number of women in the elite start by inviting those who have the 2:45 qualifying time to join it, then applied the same standard (2:19) to the men’s elite field.
But I can’t support an option that sends pro women back to racing at the same time as everybody else. First of all, it takes away their ability to truly compete against each other when they’re blending in with a lot of men who are running the same pace or interfering with tactics. It also significantly diminishes the amount of exposure the women have on television, in photos, and to the fans lining the course. That kind of spotlight is critical for the earning potential of female athletes, whether in the form of sponsorships or subsequent appearance fees—and an opportunity they get maybe once or twice each year."
(Full article here:
https://www.womensrunning.com/2019/04/news/equality-at-the-boston-marathon-is-long-overdue_101164)
And, yes, we've gotten bogged down in specifics here, and sometimes even semantics, but let's zoom back out to the larger issue--that this article (and its advocacy on this issue) is a product of systemic bias in LetsRun's editorial decision-making (which isn't, by the way, saying that the site doesn't provide good coverage, because it does). And while I've proposed the specific solution of writing a similar article on Mia Behm, this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution; you guys should seriously consider trying to find some people with different perspectives to bring on staff (a female Gault! Although, please, no more rojos of any ilk. . .) and then truly listen to them when they raise issues or have different opinions. Then, when you chose to use your megaphone, it would more accurately reflect the entire diverse set of views of people competing in the sport that you so clearly love.