The London marathin springs to mind. Thats quite big isnt it? With all sorts of abilities entering.
It's 26.2 miles. Groups of women don't enter it "for a laugh" and it's a 40,000 event. Typically it's made up of runners rather than people who just want to do something different for charity. Yes there are people who enter it having never ran before and a lot of money is raised for charity but you can't compare the two events. They're totally different.
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's only the biggest fundraising event because it's women only. Take that unique selling point away and it becomes just another fun run and the numbers will drop. Why would a woman go to her girl friends and say "let's do race for life" if it's just another fun run? They won't. Simple as that. It's like saying men tagging along on 'girlie nights out' makes no difference to the women. It clearly would make a difference to some.
By being women only it's a unique event, which causes women to become interested in taking part, which increases people taking part, which increases sponsorship, which increases the money the charity gets from the event. Open it up to men and it's not unique anymore. Not as many women would enter and they wouldn't raise as much money.
It's only the biggest fundraising event because it's women only. Take that unique selling point away and it becomes just another fun run and the numbers will drop. Why would a woman go to her girl friends and say "let's do race for life" if it's just another fun run? They won't. Simple as that. It's like saying men tagging along on 'girlie nights out' makes no difference to the women. It clearly would make a difference to some.
By being women only it's a unique event, which causes women to become interested in taking part, which increases people taking part, which increases sponsorship, which increases the money the charity gets from the event. Open it up to men and it's not unique anymore. Not as many women would enter and they wouldn't raise as much money.
We'll agree to disagree.
Exactly. The women-only thing is a useful gimmick. Without it it becomes exactly the same as any other charity run. And as someone said above, when it becomes exactly the same as any other charity run, someone will no doubt start ANOTHER one with the gimmick of being women-only, and DS will go into meltdown yet abloodygain.
I'm kind of interested to know how many of the men who want men to be allowed to run in the race actually want to run the race, and how many just want the change for the principle of it.
I can't understand why some women don't like men running in this race for. The men might be showing their support for women who are affected.
Quite. I actually did a straw poll of this in work today – asked 5 women who’ve previously done RfL what they thought about men joining in. Four thought it would be great and one was uncertain.
Now that’s not a scientific sample by any stretch but it’s pretty much in line with what I’d expect... as is the DS poll.
It's only the biggest fundraising event because it's women only. Take that unique selling point away and it becomes just another fun run and the numbers will drop. Why would a woman go to her girl friends and say "let's do race for life" if it's just another fun run? They won't. Simple as that. It's like saying men tagging along on 'girlie nights out' makes no difference to the women. It clearly would make a difference to some.
By being women only it's a unique event, which causes women to become interested in taking part, which increases people taking part, which increases sponsorship, which increases the money the charity gets from the event. Open it up to men and it's not unique anymore. Not as many women would enter and they wouldn't raise as much money.
We'll agree to disagree.
Making it just open to women does not make it unique, there are loads of other just female runs. As stated before and as you have ignored before race for life is the most popular because it is nationwide and well promoted through sponsorship.
Look at the research shown by race for life, only 20% said it would affect their decision. Put that together with this and all the other polls on here and it shows most women dont take part because its women only. I wont agree to disagree, I have proven you wrong!
I'm kind of interested to know how many of the men who want men to be allowed to run in the race actually want to run the race, and how many just want the change for the principle of it.
The London marathin springs to mind. Thats quite big isnt it? With all sorts of abilities entering.
From memory of someone at work applying, it's not an easy thing to get a slot to run (aren't places allocated by a ballot?) and even the smaller charities have a minimum sponsorship pledge for their runners of over £1000.
That's fair enough (indeed I don't have a problem with people who just disagree with the principle of it, even if I don't necessarily agree with them).
Genuine question though - what is it about RfL that makes you want to be able to run it, that you can't do/get in any other male-only and/or mixed gender charity run?
That's fair enough (indeed I don't have a problem with people who just disagree with the principle of it, even if I don't necessarily agree with them).
Genuine question though - what is it about RfL that makes you want to be able to run it, that you can't do/get in any other male-only and/or mixed gender charity run?
I would love to join in with my wife and daughter. We have had cancer in our family.
That's fair enough (indeed I don't have a problem with people who just disagree with the principle of it, even if I don't necessarily agree with them).
Genuine question though - what is it about RfL that makes you want to be able to run it, that you can't do/get in any other male-only and/or mixed gender charity run?
Im glad you asked and I genuinely have no problem with other female only runs or female only gyms. But RfL is the biggest fundraising event, its the only running event where I have bumped into people i had no idea were running it.
There are many women who dont normally do fun runs but do RfL because of its reputation as a fun run and because of its popularity and I think it could appeal to men that wouldnt normally take part in fun runs and could getth interested in running.
Rfl has done really well marketing as a fun run. It has been a well supported and organised event and deserves it success. But I do think as its so well established as a fun run it is time to consider opening it to all. I dont think it would be fundamentally changed by such. The pink theme is great, and friendly and fun and contributes to the identity of the event. I dont object on sexism grounds as I get why it started as women only, but as it has grown I think now is the time to look at it again and maybe let us silly boys put our pink outfits on and go out with our loved ones too.
Rfl has done really well marketing as a fun run. It has been a well supported and organised event and deserves it success. But I do think as its so well established as a fun run it is time to consider opening it to all. I dont think it would be fundamentally changed by such. The pink theme is great, and friendly and fun and contributes to the identity of the event. I dont object on sexism grounds as I get why it started as women only, but as it has grown I think now is the time to look at it again and maybe let us silly boys put our pink outfits on and go out with our loved ones too.
I'm kind of interested to know how many of the men who want men to be allowed to run in the race actually want to run the race, and how many just want the change for the principle of it.
I wouldn't run in it. I just think it would be a nice thing to do to let people take part in something should they want to as long as it's feasible or realistic.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it a principle. Rightly or wrongly when I think of that word I think of moral codes, ethics and ways of living that people hold dearIy, things that are important to people. I don't care enough for any of that.
There is a thing called No shave november which women aren't allowed to join in with, when that's for cancer.
Stupid really, seeing as a woman with body hair is something people will be more shocked at seeing it's more likely to grab people's attention and get people to donate to the cause, but no, the only thing most of the public seem to care about is how gross it is for a woman to have any body hair, whether it's for a good cause or not and that women shouldn't take part. Very sad when men care more about women they don't even know not shaving, than what they do about the people who are doing something for the cancer that THEY as men are at risk from.
Are men excluded?? a friend of mine did it and he ran in RFL, he said there was uproar from some women who just couldnt accept the fact a man was running in the race. Its silly why its an woman only race, cancer effects both genders.
There is a thing called No shave november which women aren't allowed to join in with, when that's for cancer.
Stupid really, seeing as a woman with body hair is something people will be more shocked at seeing it's more likely to grab people's attention and get people to donate to the cause, but no, the only thing most of the public seem to care about is how gross it is for a woman to have any body hair, whether it's for a good cause or not and that women shouldn't take part. Very sad when men care more about women they don't even know not shaving, than what they do about the people who are doing something for the cancer that THEY as men are at risk from.
I guess seeing as race for life only seems to be for women us men do Movember, so I dont see why women kick up a fuss about Movember? if RFL allowed men in it then there probably wouldnt be Movember.
Also the comment regarding body hair... its what make women women right? if they had hairy stomachs, tits, armpits etc then it'd look really odd whereas men its not so much of an issue as its just the way men are itss what seperates us from women, if we all looked the same it'd look daft.
It's only the biggest fundraising event because it's women only. Take that unique selling point away and it becomes just another fun run and the numbers will drop. Why would a woman go to her girl friends and say "let's do race for life" if it's just another fun run? They won't. Simple as that. It's like saying men tagging along on 'girlie nights out' makes no difference to the women. It clearly would make a difference to some.
By being women only it's a unique event, which causes women to become interested in taking part, which increases people taking part, which increases sponsorship, which increases the money the charity gets from the event. Open it up to men and it's not unique anymore. Not as many women would enter and they wouldn't raise as much money.
We'll agree to disagree.
You make some valid points here but I'll attempt to argue from a different perspectives.
The majority of other "fun runs" open to both sexes tend to attract mostly "runners". By that I mean people who run regularly as a hobby and are reasonably fit and good at running.
The other unique selling point of RFL (other than being women only) is that it isn't like this and encourages all women to take part regardless of fitness or running ability. You can even walk if you like. It seems to be all about taking part and supporting cancer rather than doing any serious running. This is all great as it encourages more women to take part.
Where I would disagree is that letting men take part would spoil this idea because men are all too competitive. I don't think that's the case though as any serious male runner isn't going to be interested in running RFL.
Allowing men to take part though might encourage those men who don't normally run and aren't that fit to join in in the same way as women do. These men might not want to run in other fun runs or male only runs becasue they'd be embarrassed about looking bad / slow, but if they could jog along with their wives and kids in RFL might be more encouraged to take part. That would be a good thing wouldn't it?
So you think it's size and popularity has absolutely nothing to do with the fact it's women only?
No, its cleverly marketed itself as a fun run against cancer, and got itself a nice sponsorship from Tesco to market itself and grow to be nationwide. There are loads of other runs that are women only that are not at all as popular. RfL is clever marketing, scale and with a great reason behind it. It's just a great shame they wont include men.
These men might not want to run in other fun runs or male only runs becasue they'd be embarrassed about looking bad / slow, but if they could jog along with their wives and kids in RFL might be more encouraged to take part. That would be a good thing wouldn't it?
Not if it means the charity raises less money than they do now. Race for Life isn't a government initiative to get people fit. It's a campaign to raise money for the charity. That's it's sole objective. The charity believes that by keeping the event women only they are maximising the fund raising potential by keeping the event unique and targeted. It's all about cold hard cash. Had the event been open to both sexes from day 1 I very much doubt it would be as large as it is today and they wouldn't be making as much money. It's the fact it's women only that has allowed it to tap into an incredibly large potential market and grow to the size it is. If it were open to both sexes it would just be another fun run.
I'll go away now because I'm clearly in the minority in believing the unique selling point is vital to it's success.
Comments
It's 26.2 miles. Groups of women don't enter it "for a laugh" and it's a 40,000 event. Typically it's made up of runners rather than people who just want to do something different for charity. Yes there are people who enter it having never ran before and a lot of money is raised for charity but you can't compare the two events. They're totally different.
It's only the biggest fundraising event because it's women only. Take that unique selling point away and it becomes just another fun run and the numbers will drop. Why would a woman go to her girl friends and say "let's do race for life" if it's just another fun run? They won't. Simple as that. It's like saying men tagging along on 'girlie nights out' makes no difference to the women. It clearly would make a difference to some.
By being women only it's a unique event, which causes women to become interested in taking part, which increases people taking part, which increases sponsorship, which increases the money the charity gets from the event. Open it up to men and it's not unique anymore. Not as many women would enter and they wouldn't raise as much money.
We'll agree to disagree.
Exactly. The women-only thing is a useful gimmick. Without it it becomes exactly the same as any other charity run. And as someone said above, when it becomes exactly the same as any other charity run, someone will no doubt start ANOTHER one with the gimmick of being women-only, and DS will go into meltdown yet abloodygain.
Quite. I actually did a straw poll of this in work today – asked 5 women who’ve previously done RfL what they thought about men joining in. Four thought it would be great and one was uncertain.
Now that’s not a scientific sample by any stretch but it’s pretty much in line with what I’d expect... as is the DS poll.
Making it just open to women does not make it unique, there are loads of other just female runs. As stated before and as you have ignored before race for life is the most popular because it is nationwide and well promoted through sponsorship.
Look at the research shown by race for life, only 20% said it would affect their decision. Put that together with this and all the other polls on here and it shows most women dont take part because its women only. I wont agree to disagree, I have proven you wrong!
I would and I know a lot of other men that would
From memory of someone at work applying, it's not an easy thing to get a slot to run (aren't places allocated by a ballot?) and even the smaller charities have a minimum sponsorship pledge for their runners of over £1000.
That's fair enough (indeed I don't have a problem with people who just disagree with the principle of it, even if I don't necessarily agree with them).
Genuine question though - what is it about RfL that makes you want to be able to run it, that you can't do/get in any other male-only and/or mixed gender charity run?
I would love to join in with my wife and daughter. We have had cancer in our family.
That sounds like a good thing to all do together
Im glad you asked and I genuinely have no problem with other female only runs or female only gyms. But RfL is the biggest fundraising event, its the only running event where I have bumped into people i had no idea were running it.
There are many women who dont normally do fun runs but do RfL because of its reputation as a fun run and because of its popularity and I think it could appeal to men that wouldnt normally take part in fun runs and could getth interested in running.
I always thought women were vehemently against gender discrimination?
Maybe not after all.
Very well put
Thank you. I thought your post #138 was very nicely said also.
But it was in caps lock.
I wouldn't run in it. I just think it would be a nice thing to do to let people take part in something should they want to as long as it's feasible or realistic.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it a principle. Rightly or wrongly when I think of that word I think of moral codes, ethics and ways of living that people hold dearIy, things that are important to people. I don't care enough for any of that.
Stupid really, seeing as a woman with body hair is something people will be more shocked at seeing it's more likely to grab people's attention and get people to donate to the cause, but no, the only thing most of the public seem to care about is how gross it is for a woman to have any body hair, whether it's for a good cause or not and that women shouldn't take part. Very sad when men care more about women they don't even know not shaving, than what they do about the people who are doing something for the cancer that THEY as men are at risk from.
So you think it's size and popularity has absolutely nothing to do with the fact it's women only?
I guess seeing as race for life only seems to be for women us men do Movember, so I dont see why women kick up a fuss about Movember? if RFL allowed men in it then there probably wouldnt be Movember.
Also the comment regarding body hair... its what make women women right? if they had hairy stomachs, tits, armpits etc then it'd look really odd whereas men its not so much of an issue as its just the way men are itss what seperates us from women, if we all looked the same it'd look daft.
You make some valid points here but I'll attempt to argue from a different perspectives.
The majority of other "fun runs" open to both sexes tend to attract mostly "runners". By that I mean people who run regularly as a hobby and are reasonably fit and good at running.
The other unique selling point of RFL (other than being women only) is that it isn't like this and encourages all women to take part regardless of fitness or running ability. You can even walk if you like. It seems to be all about taking part and supporting cancer rather than doing any serious running. This is all great as it encourages more women to take part.
Where I would disagree is that letting men take part would spoil this idea because men are all too competitive. I don't think that's the case though as any serious male runner isn't going to be interested in running RFL.
Allowing men to take part though might encourage those men who don't normally run and aren't that fit to join in in the same way as women do. These men might not want to run in other fun runs or male only runs becasue they'd be embarrassed about looking bad / slow, but if they could jog along with their wives and kids in RFL might be more encouraged to take part. That would be a good thing wouldn't it?
No, its cleverly marketed itself as a fun run against cancer, and got itself a nice sponsorship from Tesco to market itself and grow to be nationwide. There are loads of other runs that are women only that are not at all as popular. RfL is clever marketing, scale and with a great reason behind it. It's just a great shame they wont include men.
Not if it means the charity raises less money than they do now. Race for Life isn't a government initiative to get people fit. It's a campaign to raise money for the charity. That's it's sole objective. The charity believes that by keeping the event women only they are maximising the fund raising potential by keeping the event unique and targeted. It's all about cold hard cash. Had the event been open to both sexes from day 1 I very much doubt it would be as large as it is today and they wouldn't be making as much money. It's the fact it's women only that has allowed it to tap into an incredibly large potential market and grow to the size it is. If it were open to both sexes it would just be another fun run.
I'll go away now because I'm clearly in the minority in believing the unique selling point is vital to it's success.