It's one of those double standards things. Girl Power! Title 9! etc

I agree - if there were some male-only tri, a whole bunch of chicks would be up in arms. (I'd just try to volunteer...)

You all should fight for entry in all female events and say you're being discriminated against. Or something.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Personally, I don't like women only tris, but looking at the market, there are lots of women who do because they sell out. The old Danskin series with 2-3,000 women per race. I know that here in NorCal, they tried a men's only race the same weekend as the women's race and it only had a small number of entries.

With women of a certain age, they have never had the opportunity to do something like triathlon and they just feel more comfortable with their own kind. If you are a few (or a lot of) pounds overweight and don't know how to swim, it can be damned scary getting into a swim suit in public, let alone working out with a bunch of fit men or know-it-all young women. Having coached beginning swimmers in our Tri club, I've seen it first hand.

As for a men's only

Crap! Darn iPad.

As for a men's only tri, I say if the market will bear it, go for it, but at least here, it has been shown that the market will not bear it.

I run into this thing all the time in bike racing. A race may or may not have my category. Most races do, but there are a few who do not. Instead, they may have 3 separate races during the day that a fast 40 yo man can race. Is that fair? That's supply and demand.

Not sure if I answered your original question, but I think it goes back to that old saying, until you,ve walked in someone else's shoes.... As someone who grew up as the only girl in the neighborhood, the first child, the first grandchild, the first person in the family to go to college, and being a woman in athletic training when it wasn't common, I've mostly done what I wanted and don't care what people say or think, but I can definitely see how others may not be this way.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

I completely see the market behind it, no questions there. I can understand the reasoning behind it too; I would hope it'd be clear to most that participating in something foreign to you with other to whom it would also be foreign would be a lot less scary than running into the darkness leaps and bounds behind a bunch of veterans with night vision. I'm not so much asking why its popular or even the motive behind it, but its legitimacy in the first place.

I'm more on page with Tc, when men start to exclude women on the basis of being women, arms and hooplah are raised with expedience. Women excluding men on the basis of being men, well that seems to be fine for some reason. For the longest time I recall Sorenstam being continually asked (and if I recall correctly, she tried) about playing on the mens tour. A great deal of people in the media are always trying to compare Chrissie to Macca and co. I am just trying to get my mind around why the double standards that are so apparent are normally so one sided.

Tc, any womens races I should try and get a bunch of the LR guys to enter with me that you volunteer at; I'm sure we'd make it entertaining :)

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

I hear what you're saying - and agree to an extent. I can understand why training with only women might be comforting for some women. Men tend to be faster and it can be very disheartening to not be able to keep up with the group. However, there are also very fast women so it really depends...

I would totally support a men-only tri. Maybe it could be for prostate cancer or something...but maybe there are women-only events because most events are male-dominated as it is. More women are starting to compete more, but it's still a predominantly male sport (at least the races I do). I would definitely volunteer at a male-only race because I like being in close proximity with hot guys. Does that make me a she-pig? :) Maybe I'll start posting pics of guys in thongs.

Giggity!!

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

hawt.

On paper, having a women-only triathlon is definitely sexist. But given that the reasons for their gender exclusion have more to do with having a supportive, "we're all winners" vibe rather than not including men, it doesn't really bother me that much. I started out in the Danskin, because like most of their target market I had never done anything athletic before and I really needed the supportive, you can do it vibe that the women-only races promote. And I have met a number of ladies that only do the Danskin or it's ilk because the "regular" tris intimidate them. Were there an equivalent reason for a men's only race, I would equally support it.

I personally would like to see the shift move from women-only to beginner-only races. That way if men wanted the kum-ba-yah vibe then more power to them. (I'm guessing that the gender demographic would stay pretty close to the same in most places... ) The Nike Women's marathon in San Francisco comes to mind as an example of what I'm thinking of. There's nothing stopping men from running it, but they are very upfront about the race experience they are looking to promote.

M

---

------------------------------------------------------------
The beatings will continue until morale improves

Exactly! As much as I dislike women only races, if there were a men only event, I would be there passing out cups of water or gels like there was no tomorrow.
If one were to read a race report from a women only event, bad mouthing another is always to be found yet this is considered "girl power." Read a mans report of an event and rarely will negatively about another be mentioned.

---

_____________________________________
DISH is how we do it.

 

Read a mans report of an event and rarely will negatively about another be mentioned.[/quote]
Unless the race report is about other men cheating, i.e. drafting in a non-draft legal race like IronMan Florida. Then, let the whining begin. It doesn't seem to occur to men to take their $$ elsewhere.

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

It goes back to when women's sports had no support. It's easy to sit back now and not see a need for it but 25 - 30 years ago that wasn't the case. It is because of Title 9 and women's only events that women can now say they are sexist. Women only events and gathers are usually as the result of exclusion from men's domains whether those are endorsed exclusions or implied. "You're not welcome here" has been used against women for centuries. A few years of women being given equal access to events and gatherings is hardly a drop in the bucket and doesn't mean there isn't a need for women's only events.

Are they still necessary? I think so. We aren't at parity yet. Look at the number of STers who are men vs women. Only 16% are women. Not much parity there. How long has it taken for there to be more than one choice in women's bikes? How about women's specific athletic anything? Just because most of us have grown up with it doesn't mean it was always there and doesn't mean it doesn't belong here anymore. It is wasn't for Title 9 it probably would have taken at least another generation before there were equal opportunity sports for girls.

We've come a long way, baby, but we aren't there yet.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce

Well I won't even begin to go into title IX, thats a beast all its own. But with 'womens only races' I see the motivation behind it, and completely understand it; what I still do not see is the legitimacy of it on a legal level. I'm all for the races that were mentioned above like the Nike Womens Marathon; men can run, but this is the atmosphere we are seeking to promote and by signing up for the race you agree to abide by that. I would also support the shift from womens only to beginners only tris. That makes infinitely more sense, to me at least. I grasp your parity argument but I'm not exactly sure, all things being perfect, that it would be 50/50 if thats what you're getting at.

Essentially what you are saying is that two wrongs make a right? Men excluded women, so now women get to exclude men? It would seem to me the only fair thing to do, would be to take the emotion and history out of the argument and put it to a constitutional test. If it passes, hey have a great race, but it doesn't seem that it would, providing the rare exception.

If a private club wanted to put on a womens race of all women and only offer to their own women members, that passes the test. It still seems that however altruistic the motives may be, a race offered to the public doesn't pass the stink test.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

These races are privately owned and run just like a privately owned club or school. In that way they are allowed to exclude who they want, legally. If they get sued, which is also legal, it may not hold up in court but their is no law preventing it. If a man decided to sue a womens only race to allow them in they may win that lawsuit.

Two wrongs making a right...There are equal opportunities for men to race and no one is legally stopping a men's only race from happening. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't mean it can't happen. That is completely different. Societal pressure is completely different than the law.

I think ignoring the history is putting our heads in the sand. We'd all like to forget what has happened because it feels better to say we've fixed it. We haven't.



"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -
George Santayana

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce

All I'm saying is that if the race were sued by Bill because he wasn't allowed to enter, and he won the suit; the discrimination would not have been legal in the first place. It seems like the reason they are popular (and trust me I understand why they are) is the reason they aren't challenged; their 'Lets support' environment.

But with all of the major races for women, Disney, Nike, etc. flat out accepting men (a few interesting links below); I think its kinda clear that their legal teams know the ramifications and the way the suit would go. After reading up on them, they seem to make everything uber girly: pink women's cut shirts, tiaras, boas, tiffany necklaces instead of finishers medals, given out by firefighters in Tuxes. No problems there. Apparently they even stagger the starts so that a woman will finish first even if her finishing time isn't the fastest. Again no problem there either; a bit disingenuous perhaps, but no problem. It seems these races are a bit different than private clubs. Augusta National is still all male, but as a private club, they are legally protected in doing this despite the fuss that Martha Burk made in 2002.

I wouldn't disagree when it comes to ignoring history but that's not what I'm advocating here. My assessment is that when dealing with something concerning constitutionality it must be assessed by only its parts per the constitution as it is written. Allowing ourselves to persuaded by thoughts and feelings of what is right or moral vice what is legal and constitutional is what I'm advocating against.

http://running.about.com/...e-princesses-too.htm

http://online.wsj.com/...494281497754618.html

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

Well you've written multiple posts basically saying you think women-only triathlons are discriminatory. We get your point. Say something new already.

I don't think you have any clue how much discrimination against women still exists today even in the US. So we have a handful of women-only triathlons and you feel discriminated against. So sorry for you. Start a men's only triathlon series. We won't whine and complain and post six times about how this is discrimination and really not fair.

BrokenSpoke

Say something new? Ok, you're misreading my posts for one. Its not the womens only tri that bugs me, its the reverse discrimination no matter what the cause, not being lobbied against in a legal fashion. Private club, like Augusta, have at it. My point in this thread is trying to figure out why reverse discrimination seems OK and people even laud it in some regards as long as it is in an altruistic fashion. Care to answer that question?

What makes you think you have any clue as to my knowledge or lack thereof concerning egalitarian issues in our society? Why would I start a mens only tri? I can tell you why I wouldn't: It would be just as discriminatory.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

True dat.

I think it is exceedingly difficult for you to understand this due to your sex. When you've been the "2nd class citizens" and the minority in terms of rights and privilege especially in such a patriarchal society, I think it is very hard to understand why exclusion of the oppressor sex is not reverse discrimination. Men are always included by default. Women have to fight for inclusion. On the way to achieving equality, excluding the oppressor allows those oppressed to rise more easily.

---

http://harvestmoon6.blogspot.com
https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/katasmit

How do you explain itU races or any sport world championships or the olympics? You just can't go and enter any of them, even if you are qualified.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

They set forth a clear set of qualification standards none of which violate constitutionality.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

My point in this thread is trying to figure out why reverse discrimination seems OK and people even laud it in some regards as long as it is in an altruistic fashion. Care to answer that question?

Are you talking about reverse discrimination is general, or specifically in a triathlon- race situation?

Where else is "reverse discrimination" generally accepted by society?
Women's only schools, or colleges. Why are these okay? Because studies have shown that some women perform better and are more successful in an all women's environment. And do men really care? Have you ever met a man who was devasted that he couldn't attend a certain school because he wasn't female? I'm curious- if there is one out there, please speak up.

An all women's triathlon. Same thing. Some women will perform better and have more fun in this situation. Do men really care that they aren't allowed in a women's only race, when there are 14,000 other races to choose from?

There are certainly sitautions where I think reverse discrimination is unfair and rewards those that may not deserve it as much as others, because they are a certain sex or race or age. But triathlon- which is really just a hobby for 99% of us? How does having an all women's (or men's for that matter) really discriminate against the opposite sex? Are you outraged you can't start in the women's wave? Are you frustrated you can't compete for the women's overall title?

Why don't direct your indignance and self-righteousness to something that actually affects the sport- like the fact that this sport completely discriminates against the lower class, because most people in the world don't have a bike, don't have access to one, and couldn't afford one anyway. OR, better yet, you could focus on discrimination that really truly affects peoples' lives and health, like sexual violence, intense political oppression and religious persecution.

Ok fine, and you are going to quote me and say, you never answered my question about "why reverse discrimination seems OK and people even laud it in some regards as long as its in an altruistic fashion."

Here's my answer: because, in regards to all women's triathlons, it may not be fair senso stricto, but it's for the greater good. Women enjoy themselves. They have fun. They feel special. They feel supported. The women who benefit from the race far outweigh the very few men who might feel discriminated against becuase they can't compete.

Are you talking about reverse discrimination is general, or specifically in a triathlon- race situation?
Talking about reverse discrimination in general. The All Womens tri that was mentioned in another thread was what got me thinking about it. I have said many times I understand the reason for them, that's not what I asking about. I am trying to discern where people feel the line should be drawn as to when reverse discrimination is or isn't acceptable.

Where else is "reverse discrimination" generally accepted by society?
Women's only schools, or colleges. Why are these okay? Because studies have shown that some women perform better and are more successful in an all women's environment. And do men really care? Have you ever met a man who was devasted that he couldn't attend a certain school because he wasn't female? I'm curious- if there is one out there, please speak up.
The all womens schools that I am familiar with, from secondary schools through universities are all private. Barnard, Wellesley, Vassar, etc. are all private universities and as such can selectively admit as they see fit. I am not upset I couldn't go there; I went to the college that I wanted to go to, no worries there.

An all women's triathlon. Same thing. Some women will perform better and have more fun in this situation. Do men really care that they aren't allowed in a women's only race, when there are 14,000 other races to choose from?
Like I've said I understand the reason behind them. I think its honestly a legit reason, it doesn't however (to me) legitimize the reverse discrimination. It makes it easier to overlook and rationalize it though.

So your answer is that if its for the greater good, then its OK? I won't try and put words in your mouth but those are the words that I am getting out of it.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

First, I appreciate you not wanting to put words in mouth.

Ok, so I think I said, "reverse discrimination is okay (morally okay with me), as long as its for the greater good (however that is defined: tricky)."

I'm sure I've snagged myself in some hole here, but I think I'm going to go ahead and say yes, that is what I'm saying. Most certainly in regards to an all women's triathlon, but I'd have to think about it a lot more if I were to apply that statement to other situations.

Ok, PV, fire away.

It seems like your opinion is one that many people hold. Its only my opinion that that's a bad thing, it seems many people believe its perfectly fine. I'm just interested in the process of finding where the line is and how people decide where to draw it. I just try and look at things as any amount of it is bad. I think more along the lines of 'it doesn't matter how small the infringement is' its the principle of a violation of rights that I see, even if no one is offended.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy