Los Angeles marathon's "gender challenge" bonus

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2014-03-10 03:39

Article here. Excerpt:

'Amane Gobena of Ethiopia won the women's race and Gebo Burka of Ethiopia won the men's race in the 29th Asics L.A. Marathon.

Gobena, 31, won in 2 hours 27 minutes 37 seconds, collecting $25,000 for the victory.

Burka, 26, clocked a 2:10:37 to win a marathon for the first time. He also won $25,000.

Gobena won $50,000 for winning the gender "challenge." The women were given a 17:41 head start and Gobena finished 41 seconds ahead of Burka.

Joshua George won the men's wheelchair race in 1:33:11.

Tigist Tufa of Ethiopia was second in 2:28:04 and Lauren Kleppin of the United States was third in 2:28:48 in the women's race.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

There is no place safe from nymphotropism, is there?

"Gobena, 31, won in 2 hours 27 minutes 37 seconds, collecting $25,000 for the victory.

Burka, 26, clocked a 2:10:37 to win a marathon for the first time. He also won $25,000.
...
Gobena won $50,000 for winning the gender "challenge." The women were given a 17:41 head start and Gobena finished 41 seconds ahead of Burka."

OK, here goes. The facts:

Gobena (W): 2:27:37
Burka (M): 2:10:37

OK, let me see if I have this straight. Female runners were given a lead of 17:41 (min:sec) ahead of the male runners. Putting aside for just a moment the matter of "Just how did they come up with that number?", much less "Is it even fair to do such a thing anyway?", especially when there is a solid purse on the line, here's what I'm see:

For Gobena (W) to say she ran "equal time" as compared to Burka (M), she would have had to finish the race at 2:09:56. That is because 02:27:37 (Gobena's time) - 00:17:41 (Gobena's head start) = 02:09:56. In short, she would have had to beat the time that Burka had, as adjusted for the head start she got.

Am I missing something? Is the head start not the only factor in the "gender challenge bonus"? Does it take into account average leg lengths and lung capacities, for example, but if it does, why are not athletes of the same sex also not judged the same way within single-sex events? After all, shouldn't a sprinter with shorter legs than another sprinter be less expected to do as well in a 200-meter race, even if they are of the same sex?

A woman in a mixed-gender race not only came in behind the man who won it, but didn't beat him even with the head start she was given taken into account. Nonetheless, she was awarded three times as much, if I am reading the story right: $25k for winning and $50k as a "gender challenge bonus" -- and an extra $50k ain't chicken-feed. Well, I guess the "equal pay" crowd must be thrilled at this news, still deluding itself as it does around the matter of worker compensation. Newsflash, equal-pay-types: if you work part-time and have a resume filled with sundry jobs, why the hell would you expect to be paid the same as someone who has a history of full-time work in not-so-sundry jobs, and expect not just to be paid the same but considered "equally qualified"? Near as I can tell, you may come to believe this if either you are out of touch with reality or are a woman who thinks you're entitled to any consideration you can think to demand, regardless of who else gets shafted. In short, you'd have to be a feminist -- though not all feminists are women, as MRAs know.

Welcome to feminist-bizarre-o-world, assuming you didn't know you were already there.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2014-03-11 03:02