women procycling ...

top_bhoy

teagar wrote:

That you compare female athletes to amateur or junior male athletes is quite absurd. Female athletes are just as extreme in their athleticness as their male counterparts, since they are as good as a female can be in that discipline! I don't know how you can compare them to amateur males, given that amateur males are some way off the peak of their gender.

Females who compete in athletics are not "medicore". They are the pinnicle of female athleticism.

As for road cycling, as I have said before, it is the quality of the road racing, not the speed, that makes it exciting.

That female sport is less popular is probably indicative of wider gender issues and discrimination. I'd imagine that to be the case if world class female athletes are considered "medicore" on grounds of their gender.

I tend to agree with you but you can't make people watch something they don't want to. As an exampe, I can watch most sports (albeit some very briefly), men or women but the one sport I just cannot bring myself to watch more than a few minutes of is womens football - With little exceptions, I consider it is still very much a second-rate sport with amatuer tactics. Just maybe, people think the same of cycling.

thamacdaddy

teagar wrote:

Females who compete in athletics are not "medicore". They are the pinnicle of female athleticism.

As for road cycling, as I have said before, it is the quality of the road racing, not the speed, that makes it exciting.

You are right in many ways but I think its difficult put into words what's not as entertaining about womens cycling. I agree to a point its not the speed but I disagree that its not a physical thing.

For example in men's pro racing you will see a tempo being set and attacks happen on a climb that can be explosive and devastating to the field. It's in fact more common however not that I am an expert the few women's races I have watched have been far less explosive and therefore it doesn't interest me as a spectator.

That's not to say its not that they are as good as men's juniors. I still admire the pinnacle of women's sport as being a much higher level than amatuers can achieve I just find in sports where strength is a telling factor i.e. football or cycling etc then women's just isn't as interesting to watch.

There are of course exceptions. Cooke's win in the RR last year was one such display and don't disagree with that if most races were like that I am sure it would appeal to more spectators who currently watch the men's pro too.

BikingBernie

teagar wrote:

That you compare female athletes to amateur or junior male athletes is quite absurd. Female athletes are just as extreme in their athleticness as their male counterparts, since they are as good as a female can be in that discipline! I don't know how you can compare them to amateur males, given that amateur males are some way off the peak of their gender.

But elite junior males are 'as good as a junior athlete can be in that discipline'. What you are saying that gender, and gender alone, should be treated as a being a reason for treating one group of athletes in a preferential way to others. That is both patronising and discriminatory.

So far the only real justification I have seen on here for treating female athletes in a different way to others who are disadvantaged in some way other than their gender, for example by their low-talent genetics or age, is that some think this will make women more likely to want to have sex with them! What a 'progressive' attitude! In my book treating women with respect does not mean arguing that Victoria Pendleton is just as 'good' (i.e. fast) as Chris Hoy!

BikingBernie

stagehopper wrote:

For someone who espouses and displays such admirable socialist and humanist principles in a large proportion of your posts, you don't half come across as Talibanesque in your attitudes towards women in sport.

'Talibanesque'? I have never argued that women shouldn't compete in sport...

You will also have to explain to me a little more fully the link which you appear to believe exists between 'socialist and humanitarian principles' and elite sport.

From what I can see people like Nicole Cooke are arguing that the system should be changed so that, although their level of performance is on a par with second cat male amateurs, they should get the same rewards as are given to elite male professional athletes. That is they want more money, more fame and to be on TV. Oh, and let's not forget the money. They are not arguing for some Coubertin-like principle, and I would have a lot more time for them if they were. In fact, it appears to me that people like Cooke are simply dressing up in the clothes of egalitarianism in order to further their own strictly non-egalitarian interests...

I have much the same attitudes towards male athletes. I have always have had much more time for those simply struggling to finish a Grand tour, not worrying about the rewards they will get, especially when they are doing so clean and have to match a pace set by the Epo and blood-doped 'stars'. To me the hero-worship of 'ubermenschen' like Armstrong simply reinforces the 'dog-eat-dog', 'to the winner the spoils' attitudes that unfortunately dominate modern 'society', along with the view that all that matters is winning -by whatever means are necessary - and the rewards this brings.

Coubertin's view of sport was that 'The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.' It follows that the rewards given to the victor are of secondary importance, or are even irrelevant to the true meaning of sport. I would like to see women, and men for that matter, emphasising such values much more, rather than jumping on the 'me me' bandwagon.

Much the same could be said about the role of women in the workplace. Instead of moaning on about the 'glass ceiling' - which largely exists because of the testosterone fuelled, dog-eat dog attitudes that dominate corporate culture, along with the realisation that women often have other priorities in life other than serving the company they work for - they should try to change the corporate culture in a way that does not penalise those (both men and women) who want to do anything else in their life other than mindlessly slave every working hour in order to serve their employers. Instead they are just joining in the same old dog-eat-dog game and by doing so validating it further.

Dgh

BikingBernie wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

Much the same could be said about the role of women in the workplace. Instead of moaning on about the 'glass ceiling' - which largely exists because of the testosterone fuelled, dog-eat dog attitudes that dominate corporate culture, along with the realisation that women often have other priorities in life other than serving the company they work for - they should try to change the corporate culture in a way that does not penalise those (both men and women) who want to do anything else in their life other than mindlessly slave every working hour in order to serve their employers. Instead they are just joining in the same old dog-eat-dog game and by doing so validating it further.

Congratlations, you manage to be both left-wing and male-chauvenist in one post :shock:

Your generalisations about women having other priorities than work is more aptly applied to the difference between top athletes - male and female - and the rest of us. I'm not a World-class rider 'cos I don't have the talent or the inclination. But there will be many who do have the talent, but are not prepared to put in what it takes. There are others who are prepared to put it in. Some of them are called Nicole, Victoria, Rebecca or even Jeannie.







The

BeaconRuth

BikingBernie wrote:

But elite junior males are 'as good as a junior athlete can be in that discipline'. What you are saying that gender, and gender alone, should be treated as a being a reason for treating one group of athletes in a preferential way to others. That is both patronising and discriminatory.

So do you feel that there should be no separate women's events in the Olympics, or in any branch of any sport at any level, because that would be treating women differently on the basis of gender alone, which, you say, is patronising and discriminatory?

Is it patronising and discriminatory to say that men aren't very good at bearing children? Or can you not understand that the differences between genders is qualitatively different to the difference between, say, a junior male and a senior male, or a genetically talented male and a genetically untalented one?

Ruth

Dgh

BikingBernie wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

From what I can see people like Nicole Cooke are arguing that the system should be changed so that, although their level of performance is on a par with second cat male amateurs, they should get the same rewards as are given to elite male professional athletes. That is they want more money, more fame and to be on TV. Oh, and let's not forget the money. They are not arguing for some Coubertin-like principle, and I would have a lot more time for them if they were. In fact, it appears to me that people like Cooke are simply dressing up in the clothes of egalitarianism in order to further their own strictly non-egalitarian interests...

Do I detect the whiff of envy? A mediocre male rider resenting the fact that he can ride as well as NC but she's a champ and he's a chump? Or is it just and old-fashioned socialist dislike of anyone who excells and wants to be rewarded for it?

BikingBernie

Dgh wrote:

Do I detect the whiff of envy? A mediocre male rider resenting the fact that he can ride as well as NC but she's a champ and he's a chump? Or is it just and old-fashioned socialist dislike of anyone who excells and wants to be rewarded for it?

That's just the sort of right-wing claptrap people on here come out with when I have been critical of Armstrong.

frenchfighter

BikingBernie wrote:

Coubertin's view of sport was that 'The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.' It follows that the rewards given to the victor are of secondary importance, or are even irrelevant to the true meaning of sport. I would like to see women, and men for that matter, emphasising such values much more, rather than jumping on the 'me me' bandwagon.

I like this a lot. It would explain why the French love the attacking riders, even if it is clear an attack is not going to be successful.

BikingBernie

BeaconRuth wrote:

do you feel that there should be no separate women's events in the Olympics, or in any branch of any sport at any level, because that would be treating women differently on the basis of gender alone, which, you say, is patronising and discriminatory?

No, I am not saying that. What is patronising and discriminatory is not having separate events for women as such but saying that women should get some sort of preferential treatment - such as the same rewards as elite male professionals irrespective of their actual level of performance - purely because of their gender. I had thought that treating people in a such preferential way purely because of their gender was what feminists had been fighting against for years!

BeaconRuth wrote:

can you not understand that the differences between genders is qualitatively different to the difference between, say, a junior male and a senior male, or a genetically talented male and a genetically untalented one?

As I said, I had thought that treating people in a preferential way purely because of their gender was what feminists had been fighting against for years!

BikingBernie

Dgh wrote:

I'm not a World-class rider 'cos I don't have the talent or the inclination. But there will be many who do have the talent, but are not prepared to put in what it takes. There are others who are prepared to put it in. Some of them are called Nicole, Victoria, Rebecca or even Jeannie.

Thanks for illustrating my point about how elite sport helps to reinforce the myth of the meritocracy, where the 'winner' deserves all they get and those who fail deserve nothing but contempt... Perhaps you should try reading Alain de Botton's 'Status Anxiety'.

BeaconRuth

BikingBernie wrote:

From what I can see people like Nicole Cooke are arguing that the system should be changed so that, although their level of performance is on a par with second cat male amateurs, they should get the same rewards as are given to elite male professional athletes. That is they want more money, more fame and to be on TV. Oh, and let's not forget the money. They are not arguing for some Coubertin-like principle, and I would have a lot more time for them if they were. In fact, it appears to me that people like Cooke are simply dressing up in the clothes of egalitarianism in order to further their own strictly non-egalitarian interests...

Coubertin's view of sport was that 'The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.'

Is it not possible that what motivates Cooke to speak out on these things is her desire to see more women taking part in 'the struggle'? If elite women were given more respect, coverage, kudos and greater rewards for their achievements it would undoubtedly have a major impact on the take up of the sport by women at grass roots level. That is to say, far more women would think that participation in the sport was a struggle worth getting involved in.

I strongly suspect that Cooke's motivates are a very long way from the 'me me me' attitude you are assuming, and that, in fact, she's bang in tune with you and Coubertin about 'fighting well'. The book she published last year, all about encouraging everyone (including absolute novices) to get on their bikes and enjoy cycling seems to bear out that. Do you not agree?

Ruth

frenchfighter

BeaconRuth wrote:

If elite women were given more respect, coverage, kudos and greater rewards for their achievements it would undoubtedly have a major impact on the take up of the sport by women at grass roots level. That is to say, far more women would think that participation in the sport was a struggle worth getting involved in.

The coverage and rewards you mention need to be paid by someone. Don't you think it normal that the people who would normally provide this would only do so if they were to make money from it?

I don't think it is an issue of respect - enjoying men's sports more than women's doesn't mean you do not respect women.

Dgh

BikingBernie wrote:

Dgh wrote:

I'm not a World-class rider 'cos I don't have the talent or the inclination. But there will be many who do have the talent, but are not prepared to put in what it takes. There are others who are prepared to put it in. Some of them are called Nicole, Victoria, Rebecca or even Jeannie.

Thanks for illustrating my point about how elite sport helps to reinforce the myth of the meritocracy, where the 'winner' deserves all they get and those who fail deserve nothing but contempt... Perhaps you should try reading Alain de Botton's 'Status Anxiety'.

I didn't say that those who fail deserve nothing but contempt. If I thought that way, most bike riders (myself included) would be worthy of contempt. Those who lack talent are worthy of respect, as are those who simply prioritise other things.That doesn't stop me admiring and respecting those who, having the talent, put in what it takes to become champions.

Sport can no more be a perfect meritocracy than life can, but that's no reason to denigrate the whole idea of merit. But the, you are a socialist, you're against merit.

Dgh

BeaconRuth, whilst I don't have a problem with Nicole Cooke wanting to be rewarded, I could not agree more with what you say.

We have a big problem in this country with the idea of what cosntitutes a good female body. A man who trains, and whose body reflects it, is respected. Too often, a young woman who trains and whose body reflects it is said to "look like a man". If Britain's female riders continue to excell, who knows, maybe riding a bike will be seen as more and more normal, aspirational even (which might also get more men riding ). That would be very good for us as a society.

Dgh

frenchfighter wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

If elite women were given more respect, coverage, kudos and greater rewards for their achievements it would undoubtedly have a major impact on the take up of the sport by women at grass roots level. That is to say, far more women would think that participation in the sport was a struggle worth getting involved in.

The coverage and rewards you mention need to be paid by someone. Don't you think it normal that the people who would normally provide this would only do so if they were to make money from it?

I don't think it is an issue of respect - enjoying men's sports more than women's doesn't mean you do not respect women.

You're right. You don;t have to enjoy them equally. But saying that, for example, Victoria Pendleton "isn't as good as" Sir Chris, or that Nicole "isn't as good as" (say) Cunego or Boonen is a question of respect.

BeaconRuth

BikingBernie wrote:

No, I am not saying that. What is patronising and discriminatory is not having separate events for women as such but saying that women should get some sort of preferential treatment - such as the same rewards as elite male professionals irrespective of their actual level of performance - purely because of their gender. I had thought that treating people in a such preferential way purely because of their gender was what feminists had been fighting against for years!

Ah, so, you're saying that the speed of the women is not equal to the speed of the men, therefore what you call their 'performance' is inferior, therefore they should not expect the same rewards.

So, you are making the judgement that rewards should be given on the basis of strength, speed, power, because that is what you call 'performance'.

Whereas sport is actually based on relative performances (aka winning), not on the absolute measure of strength, speed or power.

If your logic was followed, then a male World Champion who won, but wasn't as fast, strong or powerful as previous World Champions, should have his rewards reduced, because his performance wasn't so great?

Ruth

Pross

Do I think there should be more televised womens races? Yes. Do I think they should get equal pay? No but the gap should be reduced which the additional sponsorship attracted by TV coverage would probably resolve.

I don't expect women to race as quickly as men but for equal money they should be riding equal distances. The same as with tennis, I don't have any problem with women in Grand Slams getting equal prize money but they should play best of 5 and other than the Williams sisters and Clisters they need to improve their physicality.

Personally the more women's sport on TV the happier I am but that's probably cos I'm a perv lol :oops:

frenchfighter

Dgh wrote:

You're right. You don;t have to enjoy them equally. But saying that, for example, Victoria Pendleton "isn't as good as" Sir Chris, or that Nicole "isn't as good as" (say) Cunego or Boonen is a question of respect.

I don't agree that it is a matter of respect. If I say Evans isn't as good as Sastre (ie/. two male riders), is that a question of respect? Am I showing disrespect to Evans? Just because you compare a man to a woman you are trying to say it is a question of respect.

Dgh

frenchfighter wrote:

Dgh wrote:

You're right. You don;t have to enjoy them equally. But saying that, for example, Victoria Pendleton "isn't as good as" Sir Chris, or that Nicole "isn't as good as" (say) Cunego or Boonen is a question of respect.

I don't agree that it is a matter of respect. If I say Evans isn't as good as Sastre (ie/. two male riders), is that a question of respect? Am I showing disrespect to Evans? Just because you compare a man to a woman you are trying to say it is a question of respect.

I'm basing my position on some assumptions. 1, there are physical differences between men and women that mean that, at least in sports where physical condition is a determinative, they cannot fairly compete against each other;2, that women who excell within the limitations of their gender deserve as much respect as men who excell within theirs (we don;t criticise a man for not beign as fast as a cheetah ); 3, that men and women, although they have obvious physical differnces, are of equal moral worth. If you don't share these assumptions, the discussion becomes silly.

It's not disrespectful to say Evans isn't as good as Sastre or vice versa, but that is a meaningful comparison as you;re comparing like with like. If you compare Sastre with Nicole Cooke you're not comparing like with like.

Tom Butcher

frenchfighter wrote:

I don't think it is an issue of respect - enjoying men's sports more than women's doesn't mean you do not respect women.

I think it depends. If you enjoy say the TdF over the female equivalent because the TdF has the crowds, the history, the finance, better TV coverage etc then no - I don't think that implies that you don't respect women.

However some on this thread suggest that women's racing is intrinsically inferior - that the top men are the pinnacle of athletic prowess and it is this that makes mens sport intrinsically superior. What else does that imply other than a lack of respect for women ?

frenchfighter

DGH, I for one do not disrespect women in sports and more or less than men. The issue of gender doesn't bother me, I will watch what I find entertaining. I was just puzzled as to how you think saying a female rider isn't as good as a male rider is disrespectful. If I compare a male friend to a female friend, is that disrespectful as they are of a different gender?!

teagar

BikingBernie wrote:

teagar wrote:

That you compare female athletes to amateur or junior male athletes is quite absurd. Female athletes are just as extreme in their athleticness as their male counterparts, since they are as good as a female can be in that discipline! I don't know how you can compare them to amateur males, given that amateur males are some way off the peak of their gender.

But elite junior males are 'as good as a junior athlete can be in that discipline'. What you are saying that gender, and gender alone, should be treated as a being a reason for treating one group of athletes in a preferential way to others. That is both patronising and discriminatory.

So far the only real justification I have seen on here for treating female athletes in a different way to others who are disadvantaged in some way other than their gender, for example by their low-talent genetics or age, is that some think this will make women more likely to want to have sex with them! What a 'progressive' attitude! In my book treating women with respect does not mean arguing that Victoria Pendleton is just as 'good' (i.e. fast) as Chris Hoy!

Junior athletes are not comparable since they are not fully developed. World class male and female athletes clearly are. Junior bodies are still developing and have not fully matured, hence thier junior status. Male and Female athletes have.

Since there are genuine physical differneces between males and females, which can be observed, varified etc as true without treading anywhere near more complex social gender identities, (which I think is what you're refering to), and sport is a real, a system if you will, that deals extremely heavily with physicallity, then it makes sense to have that distinction.

If you are talking of absolute terms, then yes females are at a physical disadvantage in all sports which are divided down by gender. But that does not mean that they are any less extreme or athletic. After all, all sporting achievements are limted by unavoidable physical restraints. Humans are unlikely ever to swim as fast as fish etc.

I think you are all forgetting that competition in sport is always entirely relative. It is never absolute. Even if you are competiting for records, they are records set by previous athletes. In that sense Pendalton is probably similarly good to Hoy, because being good does not mean fast on an absolute level, like you suggest, but a relative level, i.e. faster than the opposition. (Hence Merckx being considered a similar level to Armstrong, despite the fact Armstrong clearly rides a hell of a lot faster than Merckx ever did, in absolute terms).

if you want to talk about gender identities and progressive attitudes, then by all means start up a new thread, but in a clearly defined world of physical athleticism, i don't think gender issues are particularly pertinant.

The attitudes shown towards female athleticism on the other hand probably are.

Dgh

teagar wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

teagar wrote:

That you compare female athletes to amateur or junior male athletes is quite absurd. Female athletes are just as extreme in their athleticness as their male counterparts, since they are as good as a female can be in that discipline! I don't know how you can compare them to amateur males, given that amateur males are some way off the peak of their gender.

But elite junior males are 'as good as a junior athlete can be in that discipline'. What you are saying that gender, and gender alone, should be treated as a being a reason for treating one group of athletes in a preferential way to others. That is both patronising and discriminatory.

So far the only real justification I have seen on here for treating female athletes in a different way to others who are disadvantaged in some way other than their gender, for example by their low-talent genetics or age, is that some think this will make women more likely to want to have sex with them! What a 'progressive' attitude! In my book treating women with respect does not mean arguing that Victoria Pendleton is just as 'good' (i.e. fast) as Chris Hoy!

Junior athletes are not comparable since they are not fully developed. World class male and female athletes clearly are. Junior bodies are still developing and have not fully matured, hence thier junior status. Male and Female athletes have.

Since there are genuine physical differneces between males and females, which can be observed, varified etc as true without treading anywhere near more complex social gender identities, (which I think is what you're refering to), and sport is a real, a system if you will, that deals extremely heavily with physicallity, then it makes sense to have that distinction.

If you are talking of absolute terms, then yes females are at a physical disadvantage in all sports which are divided down by gender. But that does not mean that they are any less extreme or athletic. After all, all sporting achievements are limted by unavoidable physical restraints. Humans are unlikely ever to swim as fast as fish etc.

I think you are all forgetting that competition in sport is always entirely relative. It is never absolute. Even if you are competiting for records, they are records set by previous athletes. In that sense Pendalton is probably similarly good to Hoy, because being good does not mean fast on an absolute level, like you suggest, but a relative level, i.e. faster than the opposition. (Hence Merckx being considered a similar level to Armstrong, despite the fact Armstrong clearly rides a hell of a lot faster than Merckx ever did, in absolute terms).

if you want to talk about gender identities and progressive attitudes, then by all means start up a new thread, but in a clearly defined world of physical athleticism, i don't think gender issues are particularly pertinant.

The attitudes shown towards female athleticism on the other hand probably are.

Couldn't agree more 8)

LittleB0b

I'm resonably ambivilent about comercial operators (in that it's not the biggest thing bothering me, rather than i don't think there are some issues there).

However, National and international bodies (i'm thinking IOC, Sport Scotand Commonwealth games etc), need in my opinion to be scrupleously equal in there dealings. Bodies supported by tax payers money, should give equal importance to womens sport - from grass roots level all the way up.

So youth academys and funding programmes should be 50:50 as should the level of coaching supplied with support from the state.

I'm happy for my taxes to be used to support all kinds of sports - i'd be very unhappy if i thought that men got more of that money than women.

top_bhoy

LittleB0b wrote:

I'm resonably ambivilent about comercial operators (in that it's not the biggest thing bothering me, rather than i don't think there are some issues there).

However, National and international bodies (i'm thinking IOC, Sport Scotand Commonwealth games etc), need in my opinion to be scrupleously equal in there dealings. Bodies supported by tax payers money, should give equal importance to womens sport - from grass roots level all the way up.

So youth academys and funding programmes should be 50:50 as should the level of coaching supplied with support from the state.

I'm happy for my taxes to be used to support all kinds of sports - i'd be very unhappy if i thought that men got more of that money than women.

50/50 funding split even if 90% of participants are male...thats very generous of you. Why should women get the same number of events if there are not the number available to support it to a decent level. I'm pretty sure its not much fun or honour winning an event where there is poor opposition until the final round or so. Thats not to say womens events should be ignored forever more but all things should be decided on merit and fairness. Your idea addresses neither. Where I do agree with you is that Male or female, all should have access to the same level of coaching and facilities.

Le Commentateur

Leaving aside the athletes themselves for the moment, the sponsorship/marketing industry is largely focussed on 'male' sports, due ,I assume, to the sport funders believing men to be the core target audience. Presumably this is due to a fundamental state of our society which is still largely male dominated, whether it is corporate hospitality or pub culture.

Le Commentateur

northernneil wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Nicole-Cook-Tells-Sky-News-She-Wants-Sexual-Equality-In-Cycling/Article/200909415390204

just thinking that in a sport which is all about physical prowess does anyone think that people will seriously watch the girls race ? in fact IS there a sport where the women have just as much coverage/'respect' as the men ?

this is not meant to be an offensive comment by the way, just a comment prompting debate

"Girl's race"? That in itself is somewhat revealing.

leguape

BikingBernie wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

For someone who espouses and displays such admirable socialist and humanist principles in a large proportion of your posts, you don't half come across as Talibanesque in your attitudes towards women in sport.

'Talibanesque'? I have never argued that women shouldn't compete in sport...

You will also have to explain to me a little more fully the link which you appear to believe exists between 'socialist and humanitarian principles' and elite sport.

From what I can see people like Nicole Cooke are arguing that the system should be changed so that, although their level of performance is on a par with second cat male amateurs, they should get the same rewards as are given to elite male professional athletes. That is they want more money, more fame and to be on TV. Oh, and let's not forget the money. They are not arguing for some Coubertin-like principle, and I would have a lot more time for them if they were. In fact, it appears to me that people like Cooke are simply dressing up in the clothes of egalitarianism in order to further their own strictly non-egalitarian interests...

I have much the same attitudes towards male athletes. I have always have had much more time for those simply struggling to finish a Grand tour, not worrying about the rewards they will get, especially when they are doing so clean and have to match a pace set by the Epo and blood-doped 'stars'. To me the hero-worship of 'ubermenschen' like Armstrong simply reinforces the 'dog-eat-dog', 'to the winner the spoils' attitudes that unfortunately dominate modern 'society', along with the view that all that matters is winning -by whatever means are necessary - and the rewards this brings.

Coubertin's view of sport was that 'The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.' It follows that the rewards given to the victor are of secondary importance, or are even irrelevant to the true meaning of sport. I would like to see women, and men for that matter, emphasising such values much more, rather than jumping on the 'me me' bandwagon.

Much the same could be said about the role of women in the workplace. Instead of moaning on about the 'glass ceiling' - which largely exists because of the testosterone fuelled, dog-eat dog attitudes that dominate corporate culture, along with the realisation that women often have other priorities in life other than serving the company they work for - they should try to change the corporate culture in a way that does not penalise those (both men and women) who want to do anything else in their life other than mindlessly slave every working hour in order to serve their employers. Instead they are just joining in the same old dog-eat-dog game and by doing so validating it further.

So how much do you think a top-flight woman can earn as a professional bike rider?

UCI ProTour male neopro riders have a guaranteed salary which is higher than almost every woman riding at the top of their sport. Third division men's teams pay better. Heck there's probably second cat chipper riders who get more money in their pocket than top flight women.

Is there something so fundamentally wrong with the best women in their sport wanting a bit more of a fair opportunity from the organisation which claims to represent them?

BikingBernie

BeaconRuth wrote:

so, you're saying that the speed of the women is not equal to the speed of the men, therefore what you call their 'performance' is inferior, therefore they should not expect the same rewards. So, you are making the judgement that rewards should be given on the basis of strength, speed, power, because that is what you call 'performance'. Whereas sport is actually based on relative performances (aka winning), not on the absolute measure of strength, speed or power.

And relatively speaking, someone who wins a 3rd category RR is just as much a winner as someone who wins the Tour de France. But they don't get the same level of reward and acclaim do they? Why? Because in absolute terms the performance of a Tour winner is much more impressive. You seem to be arguing that this 'higher, faster, stronger' aspect of sport should be ignored, but only when doing so favours female competitors…

BeaconRuth wrote:

If your logic was followed, then a male World Champion who won, but wasn't as fast, strong or powerful as previous World Champions, should have his rewards reduced, because his performance wasn't so great?

If a competitor’s ability was so much less than those who had gone before, how would they win in the first place? By sheer luck or cunning perhaps? I am sure such a rider would get much less respect than someone who won through the virtue of their performance. What's more, when it comes to world records and so on, a competitor who does not meet the mark set by previous competitors would get absolutely no reward. That is no place in the record books.