Bex gets touchy because it's BS? That doesn't make sense.
And for the record, I'm not one of those bitter types - I'm simply taking the opportunity to state my opinion in a man-bashing thread, which is what this is degenerating into. You can't expect to say things like post no 97 without expecting a bit coming back.
Bex gets touchy because it's BS? That doesn't make sense.
And for the record, I'm not one of those bitter types - I'm simply taking the opportunity to state my opinion in a man-bashing thread, which is what this is degenerating into. You can't expect to say things like post no 97 without expecting a bit coming back.
But I agree with you that post 97 is ridiculous.
All I am saying (and I don't think it's particularly touchy really) is that just because I disagree that a single sex charity race is sexist, it doesn't mean that I would dismiss actual (IMO) sexism towards men.
Bex gets touchy because it's BS? That doesn't make sense.
And for the record, I'm not one of those bitter types - I'm simply taking the opportunity to state my opinion in a man-bashing thread, which is what this is degenerating into. You can't expect to say things like post no 97 without expecting a bit coming back.
Because implying women don't see sexism when it's against a man is BS. They do.
It's not sexist to have female only race, the same as it's not sexist to have male only races, male only golf clubs, female only gyms. It's not sexism.
Im not convinced. This in inconsistent with your stance on other issues of predujice.
As I said it bothers me not. Im happy that people are inconsistent in matters of predujice. I would love to run along with my wife in this event. But I cant so be it.
I certainly take issue with those who say men will make it too competitive. Silly. Men would just run along with their wives. That is a sexist view.
There is no inconsistency at all - I don't believe it is right to discriminate in the provision of goods or services to the general public but that is a different thing to allowing a club (even a short-lived one) to cater to groups they wish to. In the same way as I believe people should be able to discriminate as they please in their own home (as long as they are not using it as a B&B, in which case they can discriminate only in the private part of it).
Race for life is the most well known, charity run there is, its nationwide. If they included men they would be raising more money as this poll shows!
Nope they wouldn't because they would lose all the women who enter because it's a women only event. It's an extremely powerful marketing tool to get women interested in a charity run who wouldn't run otherwise. Make it open to all and you lose that marketing tool and the number of people running would drop.
There is no inconsistency at all - I don't believe it is right to discriminate in the provision of goods or services to the general public but that is a different thing to allowing a club (even a short-lived one) to cater to groups they wish to. In the same way as I believe people should be able to discriminate as they please in their own home (as long as they are not using it as a B&B, in which case they can discriminate only in the private part of it).
So if a b&b were to set up as a "club" and not allow gays in for that day. That would be okay? A straight only b&b club? It doesnt work does it. Isnt it just worth accepting that everyone discriminates on a daily basis and when its just a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things no harm done?
I don't understand how these rinse and repeat threads get the amount of comments and views that they do, hasn't this all been said already?
Because they still haven't included men in the biggest fundraising running event in the country.
I have no problem with female only gyms or female only clubs. But when you are running one of the biggest fundraising events in the country I strongly believe it should be open for everyone irrespective of gender just as strongly as I believe it should be open to everyone irrespective of race or ability!
Nope they wouldn't because they would lose all the women who enter because it's a women only event. It's an extremely powerful marketing tool to get women interested in a charity run who wouldn't run otherwise. Make it open to all and you lose that marketing tool and the number of people running would drop.
They would NOT lose all the women who enter, as the poll suggests most women would still run irrespective if men were there too or not. I am sure that more people would enter if men were included and more money would be donated to cancer research.
They would NOT lose all the women who enter, as the poll suggests most women would still run irrespective if men were there too or not. I am sure that more people would enter if men were included and more money would be donated to cancer research.
If that's the case why do the vast majority of women who take part in the event not take part in other running events? Why is it they only ever do Race For Life? Why is it that a lot of them are running for the first time?
The women only aspect is a huge hook that gets women interested who normally wouldn't dream of taking part in a charity run. It makes the event unique. It gives one woman the opportunity to approach her female friendship group and get them to club together and do it as a group for a laugh as a girls only activity.
If it were an open event open to men and women that motivation would be gone because it just becomes just another charity fun run... which we know they're not interested in. That "lets do it as a girly thing" motivation disappears. Suddenly you lose all of those normally not sporty women and your number of participants drops. Because why would they enter just another event?
It's because the race for life is women only that it's so big. Show me another mixed charity event of similar distance that has anywhere near the same numbers of participants and money raised.
If that's the case why do the vast majority of women who take part in the event not take part in other running events? Why is it they only ever do Race For Life? Why is it that a lot of them are running for the first time?
The women only aspect is a huge hook that gets women interested who normally wouldn't dream of taking part in a charity run. It makes the event unique. It gives one woman the opportunity to approach her female friendship group and get them to club together and do it as a group for a laugh as a girls only activity.
If it were an open event open to men and women that motivation would be gone because it just becomes just another charity fun run... which we know they're not interested in. That "lets do it as a girly thing" motivation disappears. Suddenly you lose all of those normally not sporty women and your number of participants drops. Because why would they enter just another event?
It's because the race for life is women only that it's so big. Show me another mixed charity event of similar distance that has anywhere near the same numbers of participants and money raised.
The London marathin springs to mind. Thats quite big isnt it? With all sorts of abilities entering.
They would NOT lose all the women who enter, as the poll suggests most women would still run irrespective if men were there too or not. I am sure that more people would enter if men were included and more money would be donated to cancer research.
As has already been mentioned, a poll on DS is hardly firm evidence that rfl would raise more money if it were open to men.
It is as successful as it is because of the format. Open it up to men, and it becomes just another 5k - of which there are countless up and down the country every weekend.
RFL is a succesful event. It raises a lot of money. Why risk that? If a bloke wants to run a 5k to raise money for cancer research as well, there is absolutely nothing to stop them entering a different event.
So if a b&b were to set up as a "club" and not allow gays in for that day. That would be okay? A straight only b&b club? It doesnt work does it. Isnt it just worth accepting that everyone discriminates on a daily basis and when its just a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things no harm done?
There are clubs that have accommodation - I used to regularly stay at a women's club when I visited London and my mother still does. I have no issue with clubs at all, as long as they treat visitors and their guests equally when they are there. But the B&B owners didn't choose to go down that route... they were offering a service for the general public and then discriminated against members of the general public on the basis of their sexuality.
And no, I don't accept that such general discrimination is acceptable.
There are clubs that have accommodation - I used to regularly stay at a women's club when I visited London and my mother still does. I have no issue with clubs at all, as long as they treat visitors and their guests equally when they are there. But the B&B owners didn't choose to go down that route... they were offering a service for the general public and then discriminated against members of the general public on the basis of their sexuality.
And no, I don't accept that such general discrimination is acceptable.
So I could start a b&b club, and not allow gays to join? Thats ok? Its quite a confusing stance you have. A golf club could have a no gay policy?
If that's the case why do the vast majority of women who take part in the event not take part in other running events? Why is it they only ever do Race For Life? Why is it that a lot of them are running for the first time?
The women only aspect is a huge hook that gets women interested who normally wouldn't dream of taking part in a charity run. It makes the event unique. It gives one woman the opportunity to approach her female friendship group and get them to club together and do it as a group for a laugh as a girls only activity.
If it were an open event open to men and women that motivation would be gone because it just becomes just another charity fun run... which we know they're not interested in. That "lets do it as a girly thing" motivation disappears. Suddenly you lose all of those normally not sporty women and your number of participants drops. Because why would they enter just another event?
It's because the race for life is women only that it's so big. Show me another mixed charity event of similar distance that has anywhere near the same numbers of participants and money raised.
Lets start with your questions: Many women run in race for life as well as other fundraising runs, some of these for women only and some of these are mixed. Some people only do race for life as it is the biggest fundraising running event in the country, others do it to fight cancer. As it is the biggest event in the country more and more people are joining.
It's not the woman hook that most people go for, its usually because they know someone who has been affected by cancer and want to do something for it and because they know others who will be there or can encourage others to join them. If males were also able to take part there would be more that would be encouraged and encouraging others. Having males would not stop a female group taking part. But as well as the female groups there would be mixed groups and male groups... aka MORE people!
For most people the motivation is to beat cancer! I know this because I support my mum and cousin run this every year but I and they would love it if I could join them with my dad and brother! They would like to do it with me as a family!
Having males would not stop girly groups going and having a laugh, it already has that theme to it. This poll amongst many other proves it. We are not very sporty but we would like to run together to help cancer research in the biggest fundraising event there is.
It is sexist not to include men now because of the size race for life is. If they stopped women running the London marathon that would also be sexist!
Lets start with your questions: Many women run in race for life as well as other fundraising runs, some of these for women only and some of these are mixed. Some people only do race for life as it is the biggest fundraising running event in the country, others do it to fight cancer. As it is the biggest event in the country more and more people are joining.
It's not the woman hook that most people go for, its usually because they know someone who has been affected by cancer and want to do something for it and because they know others who will be there or can encourage others to join them. If males were also able to take part there would be more that would be encouraged and encouraging others. Having males would not stop a female group taking part. But as well as the female groups there would be mixed groups and male groups... aka MORE people!
For most people the motivation is to beat cancer! I know this because I support my mum and cousin run this every year but I and they would love it if I could join them with my dad and brother! They would like to do it with me as a family!
Having males would not stop girly groups going and having a laugh, it already has that theme to it. This poll amongst many other proves it. We are not very sporty but we would like to run together to help cancer research in the biggest fundraising event there is.
It is sexist not to include men now because of the size race for life is. If they stopped women running the London marathon that would also be sexist!
RFL didn't start off as a big event. It started as a small race run by and for women who didn't want to take part in more competitive races. It's grown to the size it is because of the format.
So, if you open it up to men, say it makes the same amount of money, but half the women go off and start up the run for life because they don't like the race for life any more. Will you then start demanding men get into that one as well? It clearly appeals to a lot of people, and it feels rather mean spirited to take that away when there are plenty of races that men can and do enter. The existence of the RFL does not prevent anyone running a 5k for charity, it just caters for a certain demographic.
And oh, by the way, a poll voted on by what is it now, 200 people, is very far from proof that attendance of the rfl would rise if opened to men. You need to try harder. We know it's a successful event, so you would need some very good evidence to show that it would be more successful to convince people that opening it up would be worth the risk.
As has already been mentioned, a poll on DS is hardly firm evidence that rfl would raise more money if it were open to men.
It is as successful as it is because of the format. Open it up to men, and it becomes just another 5k - of which there are countless up and down the country every weekend.
RFL is a succesful event. It raises a lot of money. Why risk that? If a bloke wants to run a 5k to raise money for cancer research as well, there is absolutely nothing to stop them entering a different event.
It's more evidence than you have to prove that including men would be bad for the cause!
RFL is the biggest event in the country it will never become just another event. Because of its cause, because it is nationwide and because of the money tescos pumps into it to market it!
Including men would not risk it, it would improve it! FACT
So if a b&b were to set up as a "club" and not allow gays in for that day. That would be okay? A straight only b&b club? It doesnt work does it. Isnt it just worth accepting that everyone discriminates on a daily basis and when its just a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things no harm done?
It's more evidence than you have to prove that including men would be bad for the cause!
RFL is the biggest event in the country it will never become just another event. Because of its cause, because it is nationwide and because of the money tescos pumps into it to market it!
Including men would not risk it, it would improve it! FACT
Cancer research think otherwise, and just adding the word FACT onto a baseless statement doesn't actually make it true.
So I could start a b&b club, and not allow gays to join? Thats ok? Its quite a confusing stance you have. A golf club could have a no gay policy?
Yes, as long as it was a membership club and you did not discriminate against a guest or associate member of the club (for example you can have a club for straight people, but if you allow members to bring gay guests you cannot discriminate against them in the club because they are gay.)
Well, I have found this figure from the Race for Life Blog:
"In our 2013 survey, we asked our participants whether male participation would affect their decision to take part in the future. The results showed that 21% of our respondents said that they would be less likely to participate if men were allowed to enter in 2014."
Firstly, the survey only asked whether the respondent would be less likely to participate, not whether they would definitely not participate, and there is no indication of the number of participants surveyed or the response rate. Secondly, they have not surveyed men to see how many would definitely participate to make up for the drop in female numbers.
And interestingly, Race for Life has now deleted the page from their blog - Google still has it in their cache:
Comments
And for the record, I'm not one of those bitter types - I'm simply taking the opportunity to state my opinion in a man-bashing thread, which is what this is degenerating into. You can't expect to say things like post no 97 without expecting a bit coming back.
Lol:D
But I agree with you that post 97 is ridiculous.
All I am saying (and I don't think it's particularly touchy really) is that just because I disagree that a single sex charity race is sexist, it doesn't mean that I would dismiss actual (IMO) sexism towards men.
If so could you please explain why
*Edit grammar correction
Because implying women don't see sexism when it's against a man is BS. They do.
It's not sexist to have female only race, the same as it's not sexist to have male only races, male only golf clubs, female only gyms. It's not sexism.
There is no inconsistency at all - I don't believe it is right to discriminate in the provision of goods or services to the general public but that is a different thing to allowing a club (even a short-lived one) to cater to groups they wish to. In the same way as I believe people should be able to discriminate as they please in their own home (as long as they are not using it as a B&B, in which case they can discriminate only in the private part of it).
Nope they wouldn't because they would lose all the women who enter because it's a women only event. It's an extremely powerful marketing tool to get women interested in a charity run who wouldn't run otherwise. Make it open to all and you lose that marketing tool and the number of people running would drop.
So if a b&b were to set up as a "club" and not allow gays in for that day. That would be okay? A straight only b&b club? It doesnt work does it. Isnt it just worth accepting that everyone discriminates on a daily basis and when its just a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things no harm done?
Because they still haven't included men in the biggest fundraising running event in the country.
I have no problem with female only gyms or female only clubs. But when you are running one of the biggest fundraising events in the country I strongly believe it should be open for everyone irrespective of gender just as strongly as I believe it should be open to everyone irrespective of race or ability!
They would NOT lose all the women who enter, as the poll suggests most women would still run irrespective if men were there too or not. I am sure that more people would enter if men were included and more money would be donated to cancer research.
If that's the case why do the vast majority of women who take part in the event not take part in other running events? Why is it they only ever do Race For Life? Why is it that a lot of them are running for the first time?
The women only aspect is a huge hook that gets women interested who normally wouldn't dream of taking part in a charity run. It makes the event unique. It gives one woman the opportunity to approach her female friendship group and get them to club together and do it as a group for a laugh as a girls only activity.
If it were an open event open to men and women that motivation would be gone because it just becomes just another charity fun run... which we know they're not interested in. That "lets do it as a girly thing" motivation disappears. Suddenly you lose all of those normally not sporty women and your number of participants drops. Because why would they enter just another event?
It's because the race for life is women only that it's so big. Show me another mixed charity event of similar distance that has anywhere near the same numbers of participants and money raised.
The London marathin springs to mind. Thats quite big isnt it? With all sorts of abilities entering.
As has already been mentioned, a poll on DS is hardly firm evidence that rfl would raise more money if it were open to men.
It is as successful as it is because of the format. Open it up to men, and it becomes just another 5k - of which there are countless up and down the country every weekend.
RFL is a succesful event. It raises a lot of money. Why risk that? If a bloke wants to run a 5k to raise money for cancer research as well, there is absolutely nothing to stop them entering a different event.
There are clubs that have accommodation - I used to regularly stay at a women's club when I visited London and my mother still does. I have no issue with clubs at all, as long as they treat visitors and their guests equally when they are there. But the B&B owners didn't choose to go down that route... they were offering a service for the general public and then discriminated against members of the general public on the basis of their sexuality.
And no, I don't accept that such general discrimination is acceptable.
So I could start a b&b club, and not allow gays to join? Thats ok? Its quite a confusing stance you have. A golf club could have a no gay policy?
Lets start with your questions: Many women run in race for life as well as other fundraising runs, some of these for women only and some of these are mixed. Some people only do race for life as it is the biggest fundraising running event in the country, others do it to fight cancer. As it is the biggest event in the country more and more people are joining.
It's not the woman hook that most people go for, its usually because they know someone who has been affected by cancer and want to do something for it and because they know others who will be there or can encourage others to join them. If males were also able to take part there would be more that would be encouraged and encouraging others. Having males would not stop a female group taking part. But as well as the female groups there would be mixed groups and male groups... aka MORE people!
For most people the motivation is to beat cancer! I know this because I support my mum and cousin run this every year but I and they would love it if I could join them with my dad and brother! They would like to do it with me as a family!
Having males would not stop girly groups going and having a laugh, it already has that theme to it. This poll amongst many other proves it. We are not very sporty but we would like to run together to help cancer research in the biggest fundraising event there is.
It is sexist not to include men now because of the size race for life is. If they stopped women running the London marathon that would also be sexist!
RFL didn't start off as a big event. It started as a small race run by and for women who didn't want to take part in more competitive races. It's grown to the size it is because of the format.
So, if you open it up to men, say it makes the same amount of money, but half the women go off and start up the run for life because they don't like the race for life any more. Will you then start demanding men get into that one as well? It clearly appeals to a lot of people, and it feels rather mean spirited to take that away when there are plenty of races that men can and do enter. The existence of the RFL does not prevent anyone running a 5k for charity, it just caters for a certain demographic.
And oh, by the way, a poll voted on by what is it now, 200 people, is very far from proof that attendance of the rfl would rise if opened to men. You need to try harder. We know it's a successful event, so you would need some very good evidence to show that it would be more successful to convince people that opening it up would be worth the risk.
It's more evidence than you have to prove that including men would be bad for the cause!
RFL is the biggest event in the country it will never become just another event. Because of its cause, because it is nationwide and because of the money tescos pumps into it to market it!
Including men would not risk it, it would improve it! FACT
It is an odd stance but their are gay hotels/ retreats in the UK which openly discriminate.
Same old rhetoric
Cancer research think otherwise, and just adding the word FACT onto a baseless statement doesn't actually make it true.
Yes, as long as it was a membership club and you did not discriminate against a guest or associate member of the club (for example you can have a club for straight people, but if you allow members to bring gay guests you cannot discriminate against them in the club because they are gay.)
Here is a handy guide for you.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/EqualityAct/service_providers_association__club__society.pdf
Well, I have found this figure from the Race for Life Blog:
"In our 2013 survey, we asked our participants whether male participation would affect their decision to take part in the future. The results showed that 21% of our respondents said that they would be less likely to participate if men were allowed to enter in 2014."
Firstly, the survey only asked whether the respondent would be less likely to participate, not whether they would definitely not participate, and there is no indication of the number of participants surveyed or the response rate. Secondly, they have not surveyed men to see how many would definitely participate to make up for the drop in female numbers.
And interestingly, Race for Life has now deleted the page from their blog - Google still has it in their cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RspaM2h4NiQJ:raceforlifeblog.org/men-are-part-of-the-fight/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk