|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole Head-Start thing is so completely bogus. It's basically sponsored cheating. There are already separate male/female top times anyway, it's just the feminazis want the prestige of being 'the first to cross' although they effectively cheated. A victory by unfair means, is, by their standards, still a victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:03 PM April 20th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Evil CHEATS. That's it's nature.
Only good follows rules, that is IT'S nature.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The results of the race can be seen at: http://www.bostonmarathon.org. The menu at the right gives more detailed info plus a search function.
12 male finishers were under 2:24:27 (time for the top female finisher).
Catherine Ndereba, the top female finisher (13th overall), and Timothy Cherigat (1st overall), the top male finisher, each got $80,000. I can’t find the prize amount for those placing 2nd through 12th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christ in a rowboat! Why not just make the men run the race with cinder blocks tied to their ankles? That would fair it up. Why not let the women ride mopeds or segways? (sp.?)
I can't see how womens groups are in favour of this. It is saying out loud "WOMEN CAN'T RUN AS FAST AS MEN SO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM A HUGE HEAD START" Not exactly a booming equality statement.
If this practice trickles down to local events I'm going to protest by starting 1 hour early and declare myself the winner as I break the ribbon? It would certainly get in the local paper. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flip:
"I am a woman! Here me roar!"
"I can do whatever a man can do, but better!!!"
"Go girl power!"
"Don't let anyone tell you that you *cant* do something!"
Flop:
"I am a weak bodied woman. I need an advantage."
"That's not fair. I am not as strong as a man."
"You can't expect me to do that. *Men* are supposed to do that!"
Yadda yadda yadda
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM April 21st, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said. In peace time or a nice clean war (where "combat" involves lobbing cruise missiles at the enemy) we have FLIP ie., women can do anything a man can do. When a genuine war comes along with all its attendant obscenities for the combatants, we have FLOP ie., women are helpless, defenseless, child bearing, home minding fragile flowers and no "real man" could suggest women should go to war.
Hotspur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We think very alike. Way back when it was first annouced, there was a news post about this and various other Boston... crap.
I said something along the above post...
If I were a woman, I would be offended. It implies that women are weak, and to succeed in a "man's race" they need to be given an advantage. Then, as a woman, I would look back at the last rant about 'advantage' and 'women', and proceed to delete my angry e-mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to have to disagree with everyone on this one.
I saw the race on ESPN and there was no male vs. female hype going on. The elite female runners got a 29 minute head start, but not as a gender gimmick. The elite men also got to start ahead of the mass of other runners. The men and women had different finish lines, and I checked the prize money, and they were exactly the same for male and female runners in every catagory.
I remember reading a post where someone said that whoever crossed the finish line first, male of female, would get a $50,000 bonus, and I was ready to cry foul. But I could not find any indication that was true. I now assume that it was not true.
Unless someone can show me women got extra money because of their "head start," I can't get excited about this as an issue of gender bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless someone can show me women got extra money because of their "head start," I can't get excited about this as an issue of gender bias.
It's overwhelming gender bias, although for reasons much more than the head start. A woman received $80,000 for finishing 13th. The men who finished 2nd through 12th didn't receive $80,000. What ever happened to equal pay for equal work (or in this case, better work)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I cannot agree with your logic here. The male and female races are separate and so are the results. If we used your logic, there would be no female Olympic medalists in any event. In this case equal prize money is awarded to the best male achiever and best female achiever.
This is not that same as quantifying a worker's productivity for pay.
I think a better example would be professional tennis, where women play fewer sets but are demanding equal prize money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:35 PM April 20th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
How is this prize money generated? How much of it is derived from people interested in watching men finish several minutes ahead of women? How much from people interested in watching women finish several minutes behind men? As with many sports in which both men and women compete, though not against each other, I suspect the bulk of the revenues are generated by the competition of men against men, and the women get a disproportionate piece of the pie. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts? I don't have any idea about where the money comes from or why. And in this case I don't care. Certainly there is growing participation by women in running this marathon, which is fine with me. I think it is clear to everyone that they are competing against each other and not against men. As long as female runners are not awarded some type of bonus as a result of their head start, then why treat this as an injustice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:04 AM April 22nd, 2004 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
If the prize money is generated primarily by running enthusiasts who are interested primarily in watching men run, then the prize money should go primarily to the men.
To answer the question of the fairness of the women prizes being identical to the mens, you need to know how the prize funding is generated.
It is not a big deal, but it does matter.
I believe you are mistaken if you ignore the symbolism that results from rigging the race start times so that women cross the finish line ahead of men. Intelligent people understand the staggered start, but a lot of people who watch ESPN and FOXSports are not as astute as you and I.
This is a bit of a tempest in a teapot... but damn there are a lot of teapots out there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I cannot agree with your logic here. The male and female races are separate and so are the results. If we used your logic, there would be no female Olympic medalists in any event. In this case equal prize money is awarded to the best male achiever and best female achiever.
And this is gender bias. People are being treated differently based on their sex. Legal or not, it is still gender bias.
In sports, a worker's "productivity" is based on his or her ability to perform. It is perfectly quantifiable in running events since performance is based on time. In the case of the Boston marathon, equally qualified workers are being denied opportunity (money) because of their sex.
In my opinion, there should not be separate male/female classifications in the Boston marathon or in other events such as the Olympics. Yes, this would mean domination by men at the elite level. Too bad. Equality means equality. Reward people based on their ability to perform a given or set of tasks. There should not be different pay scales based on sex.
Yes, I understand that elite sports are classified as entertainment and this has different implications in terms of discrimination law and audience preference. But we don't permit formal athletic segregation based on race.
In the NFL pro-bowl a few months ago, only 6 of the 44 starters were white. Too bad. If that's the way it is, so be it. I don't expect race-based segregation using the excuse that "whites aren't getting their fair share." Also, I don't expect race-based segregation using the excuse that "white people would rather see white athletes." If a white guy/gal isn't good enough, well then, that's just their tough luck.
Ironically, black athletes continued their domination of the top finishing places at the Boston marathon. I don't see $80,000 going to the fastest black runner and $80,000 going to the fastest white runner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the NFL pro-bowl a few months ago, only 6 of the 44 starters were white. Too bad.
I agree with your take on this. Regarding things like the Pro-Bowl, it's never crossed my mind to care about race. I want to see the best. If they're mostly black, or all black, I don't care. Just give me a great game.
If we are going to create separate groups with equal prize money, then let's have a group for those confined to wheelchairs (equal prizes, of course) and another group for those who are over 50. For that matter, let's have a separate group (with equal prize money) for those who are over 50 and who have recently slipped a disc. I'd have to race a few miles a day for several days -- I'm recovering; thanks for asking ;) -- but I'd be right up there with the best of them.
What gets me is the fact that this comes largely out of a desperate need to believe that men and women are no different from each other. My favorite event in the winter Olympics is the women's figure skating competition. It is different from the men's. It's based on strength, yes, but less so than the men's competition. And it's based moreso on grace. The same is true of the summer Olympics, in which my favorite event is the women's gymnastic competition. For that matter, I'm a fan of ballet, especially the choreography as performed by women.
Elegance. I love it.
Women can do themselves a favor in athletics. Stop pretending to be as good as men in sports that were created to test men. Create your own sports. I'd bet that sports created to display the strengths of women as women would be tremendously popular. And they could put to rest the absurd distortions that are being discussed and objected to in this thread.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a sane world, meaning a world not dominated by feminism, separate classifications between men and women wouldn't bother me. Nor would I be bothered by women starting before men at the Boston marathon. But of course, we don't live in a sane world.
It's the hypocrisy that really gets to me. On the one hand, feminists insist that male and female athletes receive the same pay. On the other hand, they insist that it's not fair if women are held to the same performance standards as men. Feminism demands equal pay for unequal work.
Title IX has destroyed many athletic programs for men. The irony is that at many schools, the women are being subsidized by the success of men's basketball and football. If the football program has a gate/TV revenue of 2 million and an expediture of 1 million, the 1 million profit must be spent on women's athletics so that the expenditures betweem the men and women's programs are the same. This is fairness, feminist style.
In athletics, the average man performs about 10% better than the average woman. In life expectancy, the average woman lives about 10% longer than the average man. If fairness requires separate athletic competitions between men and women (with equal benefits, no doubt), shouldn't these same standards of fairness be used to require separate retirement standards between men and women? Should not men be allowed to retire earlier and/or pay less into the social security system than women, to compensate for their reduced longevity.
Either we allow differences, or we don't. As we all know, currently, differences are allowed only when it benefits women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, there should not be separate male/female classifications in the Boston marathon or in other events such as the Olympics.
I really have to disagree. In fact, I think this damages our credibility. I am in support of separate sporting events for men and women, and I am against women participating in men's sports as a publicity stunt. I see the Boston Marathon as separate races for men and women on the same course. I have no problem with them starting at different times.
Women obviously have a different body type, which puts them at a disadvantage. That is completely different than a black-white race issue. Do I need to explain this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should a "different body type" be a reason for giving anyone a head start? If different body types are good reasons for head starts than we need to include handicapped people in races and give them a similar head start.
Running is based on speed. If you are faster, you win. The arrogance of desperately trying to give women an "equal footing" is simply Kafkaesque and so bizarre that it should be apparent to anyone that this is the sports equivalent of the Orwellian "Some animals are more equal than others."
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you would support removing women's events from the Olympics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a better question is why do you think it is fair for a man to beat a woman in a foot race and not be ackknowledged as winning the race?
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Either there should be one marathon race, or there should be many, many, many separate fields and prizes for the marathon. For instance, people with one leg more than a half-inch shorter than the other should have their own Olympic competition.
Right. Using the prevailing reasoning I’ve been discriminated against because at my university there was no basketball team for short slow guys that jump like rocks. I enjoyed playing basketball when I was in college and would have very much liked to play college ball. Unfortunately I was led to believe that I just wasn’t good enough to compete at that level. I now realize that explanation was just a demeaning athleticist rationalization designed to destroy the aspirations and self-esteem of talented basketball players that happen to be vertically challenged, deliberate, and gravity sensitive. (end sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, AJ and you (and I ;>)) should both have a chance to win a championship even if we can't play basketball as well as others. Shheeeesh.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a better question is why do you think it is fair for a man to beat a woman in a foot race and not be ackknowledged as winning the race?
The question "So you would support removing women's events from the Olympics?" is, in fact, loaded. It reminds me of the hypothetical question posed to a married man, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
A better question would be "Do you support removing both men's and women's events from the Olympics?" or better yet, "Do you support removing both men's and women's events from the Olympics and replacing them with single events in which the best compete on an even playing field?"
With some sports designed to place somewhat less emphasis on strength and more emphasis on grace (WHOA!!! The PC thought police are drawing their guns. [And I don't mean you TLE]), I think that women would be more than capable of competing fairly with men. Again, I think that certain sports already show this, and they are extremely popular. Ballet is a wonderful art form, because, while the best men and women are both strong and elegant, the men's choreography tends to emphasize the greater strength of the men and the women's choreography tends to emphasize the greater elegance of the women. By emphasizing, and playing off against each other, men's and women's relative strengths, ballet becomes one of the greatest art forms.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you would support removing women's events from the Olympics?
While I realize this is not going to happen in the near future, personally, I don't believe Olympic events should be segregated on the basis of race or sex. If you want to segregate based on body type, fine, but not on race or sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, body type would likely find sex as the major factor, I think it is good to have separate divisions. Women and men ARE built different, and until women are bringing in the same times and scores as the men, I think divisions are a good way of assuring women are recognised as participating in sports where they are not built as well as the men, and in sports such as figureskating it assures each division is scored to their own strengths. It takes nothing away from the men if there are divisions and the divisions are equitable. When one starts padding one division and not the other that is where the trouble starts. The marathon has padded the women's division.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, body type would likely find sex as the major factor,
In terms of athletic performance, I believe sex is among the least important factors.
Look at it this way. The performance difference between male and female athletes is about 10%. This is true at the elite level and is generally true at other levels. The difference in natural talent between people of the same sex is likely to be significantly larger than 10%. Take two ordinary men (or two ordinary women) who spend similar amounts of time in the gym or training for a given event. The difference in their performance is likely to be on the order of 20-30% (my experience from running and bicyling). These differences are due to lung capacity, the percentage of fast-twitch muscles, how the hip bone connects to the leg bone, whatever. In essence, raw talent.
Compared to many other factors, sex isn't really that important in terms of athletic performance. We generally don't segregate based on these other factors. Why do we segregate based on sex?
But ... if you support separate categories for men and women in sports, would you support separate categories in areas where the advantage goes to women? For example, would you support different retirement standards for men and women when it comes to social security? After all, women live about 10% longer than men. Ironically, this is similar to the athletic difference except that now the shoe is on the other foot. Currently, men subsidize women in social security. Men pay more into the system, yet receive less benefit because they don't live as long. To compensate for this 10% longevity disparity, should men be allowed to retire earlier than women and/or have less withdrawn from their paycheck each month so that their net contribution to the system and their net benefit from the system is equal to that of women? Or should we treat men and women the same, with no box marked M or F?
If we have separate categories with lower standards for women in sports, shouldn't we have separate categories with lower standards for men in retirement programs such as social security? Seems fair to me. What I don't believe, however, is that it is appropriate to make a distinction between men and women only in those cases that happen to benefit women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women obviously have a different body type, which puts them at a disadvantage. That is completely different than a black-white race issue. Do I need to explain this?
I think so, yes. I have a completely different body time than an average Kenyan, making me or most other non-Kenyan runners completely unable to compete. Give me an event of my own.
As the other poster (who's name I forget but had some excellent points) suggested, if you're going by different body types... well, EVERYONE has a different body time than each other. Disabled people from birth, disabled people later in life, obese people, really strong obese people, KENYAN men, white men, average black men, average white men... there are at least several hundred-thousand-billion body types and differences in the US right now. Yes, I know the US doesn't contain several-hundred-thousand-billion people, but each person in america has MANY different body traits than their neighbor. One may have pulled a muscle recently, putting him at a disadvantage. Give him a race. Another may have an ice-cream headache, or maybe a cold. Give them a race.
People of African decent *clearly* have a physical advantage when it comes to endurance sports. Look at the ratios in Basketball, or the NFL. How is that fair to white participants? Give *them* a race!
Negro leagues were eliminated because the black people of america were different than the women of america are now. They wanted equality and to compete fairly with the white men, and ended up exceeding and surpassing them in every sport field. Women know they could (on average) never surpass men at any sport, so they demand a 'handicap' for their victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women obviously have a different body type, which puts them at a disadvantage. That is completely different than a black-white race issue. Do I need to explain this?
Yes, I do think you need to explain this, or at least ask yourself if you are being consistent.
Your criteria seems to be "different body type." But this applies to everybody. After 4 years of cross country and track at a small college, my fastest mile was 4:49 (my main event was the 5000 meters but even that was a very modest time). The reason ... different body type. Simply put, I didn't have what it took to run a 3:49 mile, to put me in world class standing. This is due to my genetics and biology. Should I expect special treatment because of my different body type?
Are you talking about the average difference between men and women? Well, 99.99% of men do not have the "body type" required to perform at the same level as the elite women. Tough luck for them. The elite women have athletically superior body types over almost all men. Should the guy who can only run a 3:00 marathon expect $80,000 in prize money because he doesn't have the body type of the 2:24 woman? Why is his or the average man's inherent capability and genetically-based body type any less relevant than that of the elite woman?
Basketball is very dependent on body type. Should short people *insist* on separate competitions and demand that they be paid as much as elite players, who are almost all tall (again, I'm ignoring the entertainment issue)?
Of course, we do have different classifications in some events, usually based on weight. But it seems silly for a lightweight boxer or wrestler to demand that 1) he/she be given a special competition category; and 2) he/she be paid as much as the heavyweights. This would be especially true if we had explicit laws that forbid discrimination based on size or weight. Regardless, if body type is the real criteria you want to use, what is wrong with having lightweight women compete with lightweight men? What is wrong with having women who can run a 2:24 marathon compete head to head with a man of the same ability?
Why is this completely different than the black-white issue? Why do black athletes dominate in sports that require speed? Look at the Olympic 100 meters. It has been dominated by black athletes for more than 50 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last whites to win were a fast starting German in 1960 (who would have been disqualified by today's standards, which require that the runner not start until 0.1? seconds after the gun) and in 1972 when two black Americans missed their heats. The reason for the success of black athletes in this event ... body type. Running is so basic that it is almost impossible to attribute this success to social factors.
So are you logically consistent in your beliefs? Do you really believe that body type should be the criteria used to segregate elite sports (with demands of equal payment to those with different body types).
Or more too the point, when should body type be used to benefit men? That is, when should there be different standards for men and women when women have the inherent advantage? There is no consistency. When women are disadvantaged we make special accomodations. When men are disadvantaged we don't. Should we have different retirement standards for men and women, due to differences in longevity?
The only thing I'm asking is for consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The gender bias isn’t in the starting times, it’s in the reward and recognition system. The 13th place finisher got as much of each as the 1st place finisher. In any gender equal system the 2nd – 12th place finishers are victims of gender bias.
When women outperform men it’s celebrated as proof that women can compete with men or even that women are simply better than men at some things. When men outperform women we call it discrimination and rig the system to reward women for inferior performance. We practice Orwellian style equality.
I agree that the “head-start” isn’t necessarily an issue. As far as I can tell it was mainly just a way to reduce congestion for the racers. One could argue that letting the elite males start 15 minutes before the rest would have just as effectively reduced congestion. But that would have resulted in the top men and women finishers being spread out too far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is once again one of the manipulation of truth to cater to the political agenda of feminism and the willingness on the part of the race organisers and then the media coverage that follows to do just that.In the article that was linked the female runner was proclaimed as the winner of the Boston Marathon and the male was declared the winner of the "mens race" when the reality is quite the opposite.The Boston Marathon was won by Timothy Cherigat and the winner of the female race was Catherine Ndereba.But since that reality underlines the fact that men and women are fundamentally differant and that men are larger faster stronger and will always finish first,the outcome was altered and the fact that the outcome was altered all in the service of promoting a lie is the most frightening thing about all this.
Think of it gentlemen the only acceptable public posture's are lies and the only acceptable actions taken either by organisers or politicians or the media are actions in support of these lies.And to stand up publicly to challenge any of this is to be dismissed out of hand.This is as glaring an example of the dangers we all face as any.When the truth is so easily altered it makes no differance where or how this is done because it stands as yet another example of feminisms willingness to abuse even the simplest forms of reason and truth.And the fact that its all accomplished so easily underlines the need for a response.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno dude. The headline I see says "Kenyans Ndereba, Cherigat Win Boston Marathon."
I think Ndereba got first mention in the article because this was her third win (damned impressive by the way.)
I watched the coverage and I didn't see any "women beating men" hype at all. And I was looking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:17 PM April 20th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
How does placing 13th make you the winner of the Boston Marathon? This reminds me of the boys high school golf championship last year where a girl was allow to compete with the boys. The girl won the championship by one shot? However,she also was allowed to tee off on the white tees which meant she had to drive the little white ball over a mile LESS then what the boys had to and yet she was "proclaimed" the winner? Give me a 50 handicap and I'll give Tiger Woods a run for the MONEY. Give most anyone, say a two-hour head start (handicap) and yes you too can be a winner of the Boston Marathon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The headline of the piece reads as you quoted the next lines of the article are as follows
BOSTON — Catherine Ndereba of Kenya won the Boston Marathon for the third time Monday, her 16-second margin of victory tying for the smallest in women's race history.
Timothy Cherigat won the men's race in 2:10:37 to complete a Kenyan sweep.
The point is she has yet to "win" the race once.Yet the language of the article and the description gives the impression that this is her third win.I havent seen coverage of the event from any other news source yet but ill be expecting "women wins Boston Marathon" from them all.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guess no one agrees with me. I've actually gotten quite used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are alot of issues raised on this board that i disagree with as well and there are even more issues within the movement as a whole that i critisize.But thats what brings us all together here to thrash these issues out.Its what a burgeoning movement needs :)
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:33 AM April 21st, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. These people just don't realize that a female-only race will go slower, so this is excellent news for men.
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey folks,
Long long ago, in a city far far away (that's no joke!) I ran the Boston Marathon.
First, The FUNNY part: I couldn't walk right for 3 days. I could "walk" UP-stairs, but NOT DOWN-stairs. I finished in just over 4 hours. The funny part, besides what I mentioned, is that will ALL my training (courtesy of the U.S. Army Infantry School) was that I had made NO provisions to GET HOME. Boston is a geographically tiny city, and the streets were shut off, or clogged to stoppage. I had to beg Transit fare off some dude so I could take the "T" close enough to home to have my parents pick me up.
Ok, back to the subject at hand.
First, I got no heartache with the prize money being equal. I really don't.
But here is where I got some serious issues:
When the race starts the WHEEL CHAIR racers go first. WHY? Because they are FASTER and making them go with the rest of the racers wouldn't be FAIR for them (and a safety hazard to boot).
When I ran, ANYONE could run. Now, sadly, that's not the case.
But they could take the fastest 100 of each gender and give them 1/2 hour to start. (I picked 100 because it's a nice round number) But my POINT is that you let the FASTER people go first so that they don't get clogged up with the MASS of runners.
Wheelchairs first. Because the RUNNERS won't catch them and it keeps them out of the way.
Next should be the MALE runners so THEY don't have to run through all the FEMALES that get in THEIR way.
THEN the female runners go.
OOORRRRRRRR..... the top 100 of each gender.
But, no, putting women up front was a propaganda move pure and simple. The EXCUSE that the female runners have to worry about getting caught in the MASS of male runners .... folks .. what in the hell do you think the lead MALE runners had to do when they hit the MASS of female runners who were NOT the top female runners. Slow down and go around them.
It impeded the male runners and artificially gave the females a win.
PERIOD.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you on most topics, but in this case I think you are misinformed. There was a group of "elite" female runners who started 29 minutes ahead of a group of "elite" male runners who started ahead of the general mass of runners of both genders.
Think of the male and female "elites" as separate races not competing with each other. It doesn't matter who starts first. The male "elite" runners did not get caught up in the "MASS" of runners either. Please research before you make accusations. The male runners were NOT impeded, and the race was not a propaganda event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter who starts first.
then why did the female elites go before the males? ... Since it doesnt matter. please do your research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The female elites went first so they would not be impeded by either the male elites or the mass of runners. They could have been given a 2 hour head start. Whatever. Neither were the male elites impeded. There were different finish lines for the men and women, and each finish line had it's own ribbon for the first place runner to break.
The original objection posted here described an extra $50,000 bonus to the first male or female to cross the line. Since my research shows this was not the case, I think this is not an issue worthy of our attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok TLE,
I was wrong on the "elites". I admit it. But there's something YOU seem to be missing too. Do you remember when the original article was posted? The stated REASON that the females were to go first was that they didn't want the females to get caught up in the mass of male runners.
So, if that is the stated reason, and there were only 29 males and 29 females (I believe you said this) the point being that the ELITES (both genders) could have started. The race starts in Hopkington. With 58 runners and the wide roads all the way down 135 (I LIVED 2 blocks from that road) then NO ONE would have been slowed.
I mean, the STATED reason in the original article a month or 3 back was that the females needed this so that their top runners wouldn't get slowed. If ALL the ELITES, which even the fastest male did not over take with a 29 minute head start, started at the same time then with only 58 runners it would have NOT been crowded.
So the very stated reason as to DO this is BOGUS. If the stated reason is BOGUS then it's being done for another reason. I suggest that reason to be PROPAGANDA. And for all the "there was no male versus female hype" I would point out the HEADLINE which proclaimed the WINNER to be female and the winner of the "men's race" to be so and so.
That's propaganda bubba. I admit, I was wrong on some of my facts, but then, I wasn't the only one.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm starting to get that "beating a dead horse" feeling, but here goes.
Just to clarify, there were 58 male elites, and 24 female elites. The number 29 is the head start in minutes the female elites got.
If you look at the results you will see that the top female elites are faster than most of the male elites. So if the elites all started together, the fast females would indeed have to work their way through the more numerous male elites.
I don't remember the original article, but I am for keeping the male and female events separate. Besides the whole "impeding" issue, there is another argument that female runners can benefit from male runners by using them as wind blockers. This is also eliminated by the separate starts.
Apparently the London and NYC marathons have already been doing the separate starts. This is only a first for Boston.
Guess I'm just away from the herd on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm starting to get that "beating a dead horse" feeling, but here goes.
I think if i tried to explain myself to you i would get that feeling too. I dont think there is reason to explain it to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey,
First off, sorry I "snapped" at you. I had a REALLY stressful day and it was reflected in my post towards you. So, I owe you a sincere apology, and I offer it to you sir.
We may not see eye to eye on this, but that's the point of this forum: to share information and debate and educate each other.
So, it's all good. I see your point, but, respectfully, disagree.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:46 AM April 21st, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
TLE said:"The female elites went first so they would not be impeded by either the male elites or the mass of runners"
How would the female elites be impeded by the male elites? Unless of course, you believe the female elites are faster runners then the male elites?
Using your logic the male elites should've had the 29 minutes head start so that the female elites didn't impede the male elites.
The head start given to the female elites was done for propaganda purposes. Why? Who was the first RUNNER to cross the finish line? Oh, yeah,yeah they had two finish lines.... the FIRST runner (of either sex) to cross the finish line in the Boston 2004 Marathon and it's a woman!
....DUH!
Here's an idea. How about they put the top ten male and the top ten female elites in one group and let them take off together. AT THE SAME TIME and we will then be able to see who reaches the finish line FIRST.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How would the female elites be impeded by the male elites? Unless of course, you believe the female elites are faster runners then the male elites?
As I just said in the note to Stephen, yes, the top female elites are actually faster than most male elites. I'm for keeping the starts and finishes separate, and I don't care who goes first.
If this was all done for progaganda, it's very weak propaganda. The ESPN coverage had the top male and female times on-screen during the whole race and it was very clear the men were overall faster than the women. There was no "a woman has come in first!" hype.
I'm done beating the horse now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/3/3_1/2004-bosto n-marathon-will.shtml
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/bostonmarathon/300 5138/detail.html
Funny, this says that for the first time ever women will finish first. It is all about showcasing women, over the men who are naturally more competitive.
Now other than this one article, no, the media didn't overtly say that a woman won overall. But as always with feminists, it isn't about winning. Winning would take away the victim card. Women can't come in first because they are oppressed. However, they can be held up as better, more important, more worthy of respect, and that is what was done here. Women were told they were oppressed by the "pack of men" and given special treatment.
Now kudos to the men AND women who are in the elite class, God knows I could never run like that, and they all are obviously very dedicated and talented athletes. However, trying to overtly make the focus on women is wrong, just as making it overtly about the men is wrong, when it is gender based politics. When women forced their way into the Boston Marathon, they were given special treatment. So Why didn't they ask for a separate Women's Bosten Marathon, on a different day, instead of horning in on the mens? Women keep crying foul but then start making up their own rules when the men concede. Maybe that is why we were excluded for so long. Maybe our fore fathers knew something we didn't?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to overtly make the focus on women is wrong
Last summer I was in New York City shortly before the US Open Tennis Championship. I saw numerous posters advertising the event, and every poster that I saw featured women and only women. The US Open features men's singles, men's doubles, women's singles, women's doubles, and mixed doubles, and is played each summer in Flushing Meadows Park, Queens, NYC. Nevertheless, I started to wonder if the men's competition had been moved to another time or location. It wasn't until I got back home that I found out that the men's competition was being held at the same, regular time and location. The men were simply ignored in every piece of advertising that I saw. As far as I could see, the ad blitz had turned them into unpersons.
This is all about featuring women and playing them up as more important than men in sports in which women would rarely if ever win if they competed on an even field with men.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the female elite runners started 29 minutes ahead and the male that eventually won the race finished 14 minutes behind the first female then he did have to negotiate slower female runners,whether or not that caused a problem for the men or not i dont know as i didnt watch the race.
The propaganda in this event is inherit in the way it was structured to insure a female crossed the line first and in the way it was reported,again a "female won the race" and the male won the "mens division".I understand your concerns that the movement doesnt go over the top and start nitpicking about irrelevant unfounded "negative" portrayals or situations as the feminist movement has, searching for any excuse to holler,but in this case it does reflect the ongoing pressures applied by feminism that women be shown to win and the media's and societies willingness to go along.This is a real issue and a real problem.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:19 AM April 21st, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
> I don't know how they record these things, but is she actually declared the official winner? Also, how many men finished under 2:24:27?"
No, she is only declared winner of the woman's race. I've read nothing about her being the overall winner of the Boston Marathon. In Europe no newspaper has stated such an meaningless thing.
By the way you people are obviously not interested in marathon, otherwise you would know that the real reason to postpone the men's start and sex segregate the race is to make women's times slower.....because this way they can't take advantage of male pacesetters.
Organizers of marathons have realized while watching Paula Radcliffe breaking female world records in the last two years that she was able to make it only by running with men and thus benefiting from a faster race.
Actually to sex-segregate a marathon is good news for men, because this way women's times will never match men's times.
Rage
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I have seen AP reports written that start off by stating that she "won" the boston marathon. Look at the linked article in the first post. The first paragraph says she won the race:
Catherine Ndereba (search) of Kenya won the Boston Marathon (search) for the third time Monday, her 16-second margin of victory tying for the smallest in women's race history.
Then the second paragraph speaks of the mens winner.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:04 AM April 21st, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
> Catherine Ndereba (search) of Kenya won the Boston Marathon (search) for the third time Monday, her 16-second margin of victory tying for the smallest in women's race history
If we take the AP report litterally :
She won the Boston Marathon.....in WOMEN'S RACE history.
Does it make more sense written like this ?
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check out the lovely spin on this one
http://www.boston.com/sports/specials/marathon/art icles/2004/04/20/new_rule_engenders_equal_footing/
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just in case the horse is not quite dead, here are some statistics I gleaned from the Boston Marathon website...
Category: Men's Open
Winner: Timothy Cherigat (KEN)
Time: 2:10:37
Field: 10504
Prize: $80,000
Notes: -
Category: Men's Masters
Winner: Joshua Kipkemboi (KEN)
Time: 2:18:23
Field: 3877
Prize: $10,000
Notes: 45 years old, finished 7th amongst men of all ages
Category: Women's Open
Winner: Catherine Ndereba (KEN)
Time: 2:24:27
Field: 6239
Prize: $80,000
Notes: finished 14 minutes behind men's first place finisher,
and over 1 minute behind men's 10th place finisher
Category: Women's Masters
Winner: Ramillia Burangulova (RUS)
Time: 2:34:08
Field: 1982
Prize: $10,000
Notes: 42 years old, finished 9th amongst women of all ages
Category: Men's Wheelchair Race
Winner: Ernst Van Dyke (RSA)
Time: 1:18:27
Field: 35
Prize: $10,000
Notes: 4th consecutive win, world record ($10K prize), course record ($7.5K prize)
Category: Women's Wheelchair Race
Winner: Cheri Blauwet (USA)
Time: 1:39:53
Field: 8
Prize: $10,000
Notes: almost 14 minutes behind men's 5th place finisher
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of us seem to want a performance based prize in this race (these races?), although I'm not sure that makes sense. Based purely on overall performance, there will be no women winner's, and probably no "over 40" winners. And we seem to want winners in special categories.
So now the question is "What is an equitable distribution of prizes amongst the various classes of competitors?"
Should the over 40 men win less than the men's open? Probably. How much less?
The ratio of under-40 to over-40 male runners was about 1.7:1, and the ratio in prize money was 8:1. Should the prize ratio be the same?
The ratio of men to women was also about 1.7:1, and the ratio in prize money was exactly 1:1. Should the prize ratio have been 1.7:1?
The big winner in all this was Cheri Blauwet. She won $10,000 for beating seven competitors in the Women's Wheelchair Race. The big loser in all this was Joshua Kipkemboi. He won the same amount as Cheri, but he ran against 3876 competitors in his class. Also, even though he was running in a special class, he came in 7th overall, against somer 16,000 competitors of all ages and genders, and he won only $10,000.
So what is fair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There should be separate classes, and the pay perhaps based on the number of competitors?But then the Wheel chair division gets hosed. Perhaps a bonus to the overall fastest time? I am not sure about age, as a 41 year old would be running against 70 year olds, so what is fair? Perhaps large winners of men's, women's, and wheelchairs with extra money going to each age group? I have no real opinion of how the money is divided up, I just want the media to play fair. It needs to highlight men, women, and wheel chair coverage, not unfairly focus on only one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=178790 4&partnersite=espn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your link points to a story that contains only
N U L L
Did you get the link wrong, or did ESPN pull a story from their website?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
