If the race director wants to address white privilege he should be reaching out to black people not women?
It's silly on the face of it to think white privilege skipped white women.
It's also very unfair to assume any given random white male had benefitted from more privilege than any given random white woman. Some did some didn't.
Just Another Run of the Mill ex-D1 er wrote:
CarolinaRunner wrote:
I'm not familiar with the ultra community and typical male/female ratios. However, most road races (5K to marathon) I compete in usually have a slightly higher number of women than men. When I first started competing in the mid-80s, races were mostly men. In the last 10 years or so it seems like women have taken over in sheer numbers. The men's field is always deeper and more competitive at the top while there are lots more "hobby jogger" and walker females.
Have they considered the possibility that maybe less women are interested in running 100 miles and a lottery is NOT going to give them 58 men and 58 women to equal this year's field size? They'll end up with 22 females and 22 males since these are the only women interested in running it. Net result is 72 less men and a race that will not see its fourth running.
What's next, implementing race quotas? If they want a true representation of America then they need to base it on all characteristics. RIDICULOUS!
The short answer is YES (they have indeed considered the possibility that less females may be interested, and it is their goal to change that over time).
Please note this subject already came up a couple weeks back on Ultra Runner Podcast (Eric Schranz), and many of the same comments/concerns were voiced. However, I followed the race website link Eric posted and read the fine print of the new lottery rules that are going into effect (clip):
Gender Equity Policy
• Entry spots will be evenly split between male and female genders, creating two “pools” each
comprised of 50% of our entrant cap (as determined by our permitting agencies). In the event of
an odd number of entrant cap, each pool will be rounded down to the lowest whole number.
• Entrants will apply to their respective gender’s pool during the lottery application window and
the same lottery selection process (yet to be finalized) will apply to both.
• If the number of applicants in a pool is less than the number of the pool’s allocated spots, the
additional spots will be given to the other pool.
• Should neither pool receive enough applicants to fill their allocated spots, the remaining spots
will be opened for general registration with no restrictions on the basis of gender.
• Transgender or non-binary applicants will apply to the appropriate pool as defined by our
transgender/non-binary policy.
Currently, the race limit is set to be 124 (62/62 split for M/F lotteries), with up to an additional 14 discretionary race director picks (elites or whatever). So the bottom line is, if only 19 females even apply for the lottery, an additional 43 spots will be available in the male's lottery. This seems a whole lot more reasonable than what all the clickbait headlines are reporting - details matter.
(Note: I won't go into the transgender policy as it's an entirely different subject and one I'm not qualified to discuss).
So he is pretty much guaranteeing women a spot then?
An alternative could be to open registration for women earlier and then let it be first come after that.
soccerxc wrote:
Maybe women just don't want to do ultras as much as men? The inequality is not wrong, it's just down to interest levels. Anyone can sign up, no one's oppressing anyone, I don't know why everything has to be dead even. Some groups like to do some things more than others.
Exactly, the past ratios of male to female participants is an honest reflection of interest levels.
The organizers of this race are very misguided in their thinking about equality.
The article never specified how many women if any wanted to run the race and couldn't because the field was full.
That seems like a pretty critical piece of information. If all the women who wanted to run could then why restrict the men's field size.
If a higher percentage of the applicants are male then maybe it's ok if the % of male and female athletes aren't perfectly balanced. In road races where there are more women, no one is suggesting we restrict the number of women so the numbers of each gender are balanced.
I think races should focus on setting a fair policy for determining how they admit runners when they limit field sizes. Whatever policy is chosen should not consider people gender's, ethnicity, etc. Things that are unbiased are time standards(although creating a different standard for each gender is appropriate so the time standards don't create gender discrimination), first come first in, random lottery, and many other fair options I don't want to take the time to write them out.
For an elite field if a race wants to make the men's and women's field of equal size I think that is appropriate, but that same rule doesn't need to be applied to the rest of the field.
Sounds like they are MANdating that ratio.
Since more men than women run 100 mile races they are limiting the number of total runners in the race.
How many slots do they have for gender neutral hupeople?
If a bioman declares itself female then it must be able to enter as female.
I'm a big believer in RD's being able to do what they want.
Also a big believer that people should read the actual rules and history of the race before commenting.
soccerxc wrote:
Maybe women just don't want to do ultras as much as men? The inequality is not wrong, it's just down to interest levels. Anyone can sign up, no one's oppressing anyone, I don't know why everything has to be dead even. Some groups like to do some things more than others.
Considering that women are more sensible than men, I would guess that less women are interested in doing something as nonsensical as running 100 miles through the mountains.
This description is misleading.
Let's say they have 100 spots:
If 75 men and 30 women sign up, the field will be 70 men and 30 women.
If 90 men and 60 women sign up, the field will be 50 men and 50 women.
Basically they're just splitting the lottery into two pools, not actually insisting on participation being 50/50 or capping the number of male participants at the number of female participants.
The good news is guys have up to 4 times better chances of meeting likeminded girls, compared to existing competition ratios.
Not sure what the bad news is.
My daughter is in dance, and the few boys that sign up enjoy enormous preference when it comes to auditioning for performances. Many dance schools will let boys participate for free, whereas classes and studio time are quite expensive for girls.
In another example, I sent my daughters to outdoor preschool. This is much more popular for girls at this school for some reason, but the administrators of the preschool want a gender balance, so boys get preference in the lottery.
There are many more example of boys and men getting preference in activities that tend to be dominated by women. You probably don't participate in those activities, being male, and so aren't enjoying the preference. Try taking up dance or figure skating, and you'll see a different world.
In terms of the "system" that discourages women from ultrarunning, I'm assuming it's the same system that makes any time-intense activity less popular with women. Women bear a disproportionate burden in terms of childcare and housework, even when they are working full-time. This is a huge factor in women choosing less time-demanding activities, like, say, running half marathons vs. ultras
Secondly, women are likely to be less affluent than men if single and if part of a marriage / partnership, they're likely to earn less money. Perhaps for this reason or other cultural reasons, women tend to pursue hobbies that are less expensive. Traveling to ultra-races starts to turn running into one of the cheapest, lowest-overhead sports you can find into one that is going to cost you. I'm guessing time is a bigger factor for ultrarunning, but I think the cost issue drives why Ironman is 70% male.
Equality of Opportunity = Good
Anyone who wants to sign up for a race, can!
Equality of Outcome = Bad
Has to be imposed via taking away from people. In this instance, any men beyond the first 22.
Race director is a virtue signaling dummy. When equality of outcome is pursued in more significant political contexts, people starve or are imprisoned or both
That’s a great point. I’m a caregiver (mostly women do this) specializing in violent patients that most women are too small to control.
LetsRun.com wrote:
“As a middle class, white male in the US, I’m one of the most privileged people on the globe. Equality and fairness are really important to me. We’re confident that if we didn’t do a gender split, we’d perpetuate a system that prevents women from participating at equal levels,” said race director Caleb Efta to Canadian Trail Running.
This is so stupid on so many levels I don't see how they're in their own words "perpetuating a system that prevents women from participating at equal levels,” when they had a race that anybody could sign up for. If anyone can sign up for your race than it already has an equal opportunity to men and women in fact now they're actually perpetuating a system that's NOT ALLOWING MEN to compete at an equal level. All that's going to happen from this is a smaller field with much less depth on the men's side.
splitwatcher wrote:
I'm a big believer in RD's being able to do what they want.
Also a big believer that people should read the actual rules and history of the race before commenting.
You, sir, earn the right to drop the mic and walk off while I slowly clap.
The number of posters who comment on a policy without actually reading the policy is staggering.