To those of you using "activism" as a dirty word, here's a post in this thread from one of the site's founders:
also not an expert, but... wrote:
I'm guessing the Brojos wrote this article hoping to influence the BAA to reverse their decision and eliminate the 2 minute gap next year. I support that reasoning. This separate start is not the biggest issue in the world, but if they want to highlight it with one interesting interview, then go for it.
He says what their doing with this article is "hoping to influence the BAA to reverse their decision," ie, activism. It's worth asking yourselves why you laud activism in favor of one group and disparage decisions (or, fine, activism) made in favor of another.
To those of you who keep repeatedly ignoring the positives that clearly do come with this decision that benefit not just women but also pro/elite men and the BAA itself (no Yoreks, clean sport), I also think you should consider asking yourself while you're willfully ignoring (or at least, not responding) that. (I also haven't heard anyone dispute that, in an environment when sponsorship dollars and media exposure are limited, giving sub-elite women and sub-elite men on the same opportunities to break through and earn a chance to make a living at this sport; but I also haven't heard anyone acknowledge it, either.)
And rojo, I haven't called you or anyone sexist. (I'm the only person on this thread who has been called a sexist--by you.) But we all--you, me, male sub-elites, female sub-elites, the BAA, non-runners, and Mother flippin' Theresa--have biases that are worth examining. And it's exceptionally important that especially people in positions of influence do, because that's how we act in ways that make the sport we love better--for everyone, not just people we're predisposed to considering.