women procycling ...
Comments
-
I am not saying that there is. However I do see an inherent contradiction here.leguape wrote: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?
Professional sport is a commercial exercise, and the market sets the ‘value’ of a rider. To some degree the arguments of people like Cooke are akin to teachers complaining that they don't get the sort of rewards for what they do as lawyers get. I have a lot of sympathy with such a view but as things stand that is the reality of the market.
Now if riders like Cooke were to try to promote a set of alternative sporting ideals, perhaps based on the ideals of egalitarianism or Coubertin, they might subvert the existing market-driven 'values' to the benefit of themselves and others. I would see this as being a positive thing. However, I see no signs of them doing this. Rather they want to benefit from the same market model as currently exists, but with the added help from a bit of so-called 'positive discrimination' to counteract the forces of the market to their benefit. The phrase 'Wanting to have your cake and eat it' comes to mind!0 -
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.
For someone so wedded to factual discourse, can you show me where Nicole Cooke or any other top female rider has argued for the same rewards given to elite male professional athletes?
They're not asking for the same, they've been campaigning for a bit more help in terms of support from the UCI such as running female events on the same course as male events when the roads are already closed and the officials in place. It's the sort of support which costs very little financially, a small amount of manpower and could be the catalyst for more investment by commercial partners.
And for someone who you think is so wedded to financial rewards, Cooke part-funding her own team this year equipping young female riders and giving them a chance to ride on the continent suggests that financial rewards are far from the top of her agenda.0 -
Do you actually think 90% of participation in sport is by men and only 10% by women? I don'tTop_Bhoy wrote:50/50 funding split even if 90% of participants are male...
indeed, but then it's my taxthats very generous of you.
(and my vote)Thats not to say womens events should be ignored forever more
do you have a date in mind for when we should stop ignoring them?blog: bellevedere0 -
BikingBernie wrote: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…
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.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?
But Bernie - as has already been pointed out - in sports like running no human is ever going to complete a marathon as fast as my dog could run it, no swimmer is going to be faster than a fish - so clearly higher, faster, stronger is a relative concept.
The performance of a male champion cyclist is not intrinsically more impressive than the performance of a female champion cyclist. Each has had to be born with the same genetic advantages, worked as hard, had as much luck, shown as much courage etc etc as the other. There is as much to admire in Nicole Cooke's victories as there is in any within the male peloton. To deny female sport the same importance as male sport is to deny women the same opportunities that men have as far as sport is concerned. If you don't think that women should have those opportunities then you are right - there is no reason why we should have women's sport at all - let them compete against men. It boils down to whether you think equality of opportunity is a good thing or not.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Surely that depends on whether we are talking in absolute or relative terms...Tom Butcher wrote:The performance of a male champion cyclist is not intrinsically more impressive than the performance of a female champion cyclist.
But surely, to have true equality of opportunities women would have to compete against the men in the same events and on the same terms? I agree that having separate competitions for women is a positive thing, but doing so does not grant them equality with men, it grants them a special status by setting up competitions from which men are barred. Similarly, I don't think that it would be promoting equality if less bright students were granted special degrees that required a lower objective standard than a 'normal' degree and which bright students were not allowed to take.Tom Butcher wrote:To deny female sport the same importance as male sport is to deny women the same opportunities that men have as far as sport is concerned. If you don't think that women should have those opportunities then you are right - there is no reason why we should have women's sport at all - let them compete against men. It boils down to whether you think equality of opportunity is a good thing or not.
In any case women can compete with men as well if they want to, with even world-class elite women being allowed to ride alongside 2/3rd category males.0 -
Cooke has also called for some of the male track events at the Olympics to be scrapped in order to increase the number of women’s events. Ironically she has also been critical of the focus on track racing in favour of road racing as well! I am sure that like any cyclist she wants to see more people on bikes, but it often sounds as though what Nicole Cooke wants the most is whatever will benefit the profile and career of Nicole Cooke.stagehopper wrote:They're not asking for the same, they've been campaigning for a bit more help in terms of support from the UCI such as running female events on the same course as male events when the roads are already closed and the officials in place.0 -
Shouldn't all this talking bollox and sniping at each other be over in P&L? 0
-
No it's because a sponsor of a pro race gets a better return in terms of public awareness of their brand than being involved in amateur racing. There's a whole industry built around the status of competing in and winning the Tour, it being invented as a promotional spectacle in the first place in order to sell newspapers.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.0 -
From the financial and publicity aspect you are of course right. But when it comes to the supporters, they are still more impressed by the physical ability needed to win the Tour than they are impressed by the ability needed to win a 3rd Cat RR.Le Commentateur wrote:
No it's because a sponsor of a pro race gets a better return in terms of public awareness of their brand than being involved in amateur racing. There's a whole industry built around the status of competing in and winning the Tour, it being invented as a promotional spectacle in the first place in order to sell newspapers.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.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:
The performance of a male champion cyclist is not intrinsically more impressive than the performance of a female champion cyclist. Each has had to be born with the same genetic advantages, worked as hard, had as much luck, shown as much courage etc etc as the other. There is as much to admire in Nicole Cooke's victories as there is in any within the male peloton. To deny female sport the same importance as male sport is to deny women the same opportunities that men have as far as sport is concerned. If you don't think that women should have those opportunities then you are right - there is no reason why we should have women's sport at all - let them compete against men. It boils down to whether you think equality of opportunity is a good thing or not.
To a lot of people the performance of a male champion cyclist is intrinsically more impressive, because whilst both may be performing at the peak of their abilities one is going faster (and often further) than the other. Sure, there are physiological reasons why that is the case but it doesn't stop it being more impressive.0 -
Some people may be - but I don't see why. The achievement is not intrinsically greater for the men than it is for the women - and the actual speed isn't that impressive - it'd be easy to beat any of them on a 100cc motorscooter.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Cooke has also called for some of the male track events at the Olympics to be scrapped in order to increase the number of women’s events. Ironically she has also been critical of the focus on track racing in favour of road racing as well! I am sure that like any cyclist she wants to see more people on bikes, but it often sounds as though what Nicole Cooke wants the most is whatever will benefit the profile and career of Nicole Cooke.stagehopper wrote:They're not asking for the same, they've been campaigning for a bit more help in terms of support from the UCI such as running female events on the same course as male events when the roads are already closed and the officials in place.
Has Cooke actually asked for male track events to be scrapped - or has she said she'd accept male track events being scrapped IF it means the women achieve parity.
Do you think women should have fewer events than men at the Olympics ?
As for wanting more focus on the road race - well don't most cycling fans focus have more interest in the road - and wouldn't most of us like our own sport to have a higher profile even if it was at the expense of some other - what's so unusual about that that you think it worth using as something else to criticise Cooke for ?
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Surely that depends on whether we are talking in absolute or relative terms...Tom Butcher wrote:The performance of a male champion cyclist is not intrinsically more impressive than the performance of a female champion cyclist.
But surely, to have true equality of opportunities women would have to compete against the men in the same events and on the same terms? I agree that having separate competitions for women is a positive thing, but doing so does not grant them equality with men, it grants them a special status by setting up competitions from which men are barred. Similarly, I don't think that it would be promoting equality if less bright students were granted special degrees that required a lower objective standard than a 'normal' degree and which bright students were not allowed to take.Tom Butcher wrote:To deny female sport the same importance as male sport is to deny women the same opportunities that men have as far as sport is concerned. If you don't think that women should have those opportunities then you are right - there is no reason why we should have women's sport at all - let them compete against men. It boils down to whether you think equality of opportunity is a good thing or not.
In any case women can compete with men as well if they want to, with even world-class elite women being allowed to ride alongside 2/3rd category males.
You think it's good to have separate competitions for women - but you see them very much as 2nd class competition. You don't recognise that the achievement of the best women should be accorded as much merit as the achievement of the best men. The difficulty of being number 1 woman can be the same as being number one man, the drama and excitement of the event can be the same, yet for you they aren't equal.
So what exactly are the opportunities for women to excell at sport in your world ? Who would the female sporting role models be for aspiring girls and young women ? In your view Paula Radcliffe is no more than a very good club runner, Nicole Cooke a decent 2nd cat.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
You've misinterpreted or misread what I said. I didn't say there always is 90% male participation, I said if...such as in cycling, football, etc.LittleB0b wrote:
Do you actually think 90% of participation in sport is by men and only 10% by women? I don'tTop_Bhoy wrote:50/50 funding split even if 90% of participants are male...
indeed, but then it's my taxthats very generous of you. (and my vote)Thats not to say womens events should be ignored forever more
do you have a date in mind for when we should stop ignoring them?
You pulled the final quote out of context and should be tied in with the rest of the sentence. I've already addressed that point in terms of fairness and merit. Sports where there is a 'gender heavy' side has to address that issue but should it be at the expense of the existing participants? It is is a bit chicken and egg situation but you can't have a 50/50 funding split where there is a clear minority, funding needs to be channeled into your existing particiapnts. It would surely be unfair on the existing particiapants to be underfunded at the expense of participants who may never turn up. This is the way funding works for most sports in general - the more successful a sport is, the more funding increases. I'd argue the same if the sport was a female dominated one. Resources have to be allocated on fairness and merit, a 50/50 split is too simplistic.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:In your view Paula Radcliffe is no more than a very good club runner
One year at the London Marathon, Radcliffe won the prize for the fastest British runner - beating all the men. She's generally only about 10 minutes slower than the Men's winner. Which is why I'm not sure I believe BB's assessment of Cooke et al as cat 2 standard.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Well done Tom. You're saying all the things I would. Bernie's views are confused and illogical. And he really seems to have it in for Nicole Cooke. What a pity, as she is one of the best role models for women cyclists this country has ever had. Over and out.Tom Butcher wrote:You think it's good to have separate competitions for women - but you see them very much as 2nd class competition. You don't recognise that the achievement of the best women should be accorded as much merit as the achievement of the best men. The difficulty of being number 1 woman can be the same as being number one man, the drama and excitement of the event can be the same, yet for you they aren't equal.
So what exactly are the opportunities for women to excell at sport in your world ? Who would the female sporting role models be for aspiring girls and young women ? In your view Paula Radcliffe is no more than a very good club runner, Nicole Cooke a decent 2nd cat.
Ruth0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:
Well done Tom. You're saying all the things I would. Bernie's views are confused and illogical. And he really seems to have it in for Nicole Cooke. What a pity, as she is one of the best role models for women cyclists this country has ever had. Over and out.Tom Butcher wrote:You think it's good to have separate competitions for women - but you see them very much as 2nd class competition. You don't recognise that the achievement of the best women should be accorded as much merit as the achievement of the best men. The difficulty of being number 1 woman can be the same as being number one man, the drama and excitement of the event can be the same, yet for you they aren't equal.
So what exactly are the opportunities for women to excell at sport in your world ? Who would the female sporting role models be for aspiring girls and young women ? In your view Paula Radcliffe is no more than a very good club runner, Nicole Cooke a decent 2nd cat.
Ruth
In Glorious Kazakh nation woman is mans produce and oinly get medal for bearing strong calved boys.
Ave0 -
You don't recognise that the achievement of the best women should be accorded as much merit as the achievement of the best men. The difficulty of being number 1 woman can be the same as being number one man, the drama and excitement of the event can be the same, yet for you they aren't equal.
I am sorry but I am no sexist and admire the achievements of Cooke and Pendleton but in no way are they comparable to the achievements of the top men.
It is far more competative in the pro mens ranks due to the number participating in the sport making it more difficult to reach the top and even more difficult to monopolise the top.
You only have to go to track meetings and road races in the Uk to see how few women there are competeing though it is getting more popular thus increasing the standard.
I do not know the difference in rewards between top men and top women in cycling but I sure know for both it is way lower in cycling compared to golf, tennis , formula 1 (what a joke that is) football etc. This is purely down to tv viewing figures, advertising revenue and sponsorship deals.
Another physically demanding but not tv friendly sport is squash which also suffers from poor rewards for reaching the top.
My advice for anyone wanting recognition and reward from sport is to get into F1 racing or golf
But not everyone participates for the same reasons thankfully. 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Cooke has also called for some of the male track events at the Olympics to be scrapped in order to increase the number of women’s events. Ironically she has also been critical of the focus on track racing in favour of road racing as well! I am sure that like any cyclist she wants to see more people on bikes, but it often sounds as though what Nicole Cooke wants the most is whatever will benefit the profile and career of Nicole Cooke.stagehopper wrote:They're not asking for the same, they've been campaigning for a bit more help in terms of support from the UCI such as running female events on the same course as male events when the roads are already closed and the officials in place.
So you're shifting the goalposts and setting up another strawman argument because your last one was blown away? There's a fine line between acting as a devil's advocate and trolling.
Cooke (and Pendleton) has wanted equal opportunities for both male and female cyclists at the Olympics. As happens in other two comparable multi-event sports Athletics and Swimming. To me, and I'm sure the majority of people, it's pretty shameful that cycling has lagged so far behind in this.
The fact that it looks like some male events may be cut rather than just adding more women's events says more about Olympic politics than it does about the entirely laudible equalisation of the gender balance a,ongst the events.0 -
stagehopper wrote:The fact that it looks like some male events may be cut rather than just adding more women's events says more about Olympic politics than it does about the entirely laudible equalisation of the gender balance a,ongst the events.
oldwelshman I think clarifies it nicelyIt is far more competative in the pro mens ranks due to the number participating in the sport making it more difficult to reach the top and even more difficult to monopolise the top.
You only have to go to track meetings and road races in the Uk to see how few women there are competeing though it is getting more popular thus increasing the standard.
I'm hoping that this is what Nicole et al are looking for, not necessarily the same salary as men but to explore ways of increasing participation of women into cycling. Once participation levels increase and the sport becomes more popular with women, the financial side and marketing of woman cyclists and races will improve alongside.
If it hasn't been tried already, I'd personally start by trying to encourage the BBC to programme and advertise short slots into one of their channels schedule because they are so bereft of sport - it need only start of being a 30 mins slot showing highlights.0 -
Winning any sporting competition is a praiseworthy achievement but there are reasons why women's events tend to be valued less. In cycling women's races are shorter and slower; there are far fewer women competing which tends to lower the standard of the competition; people like to see other human beings do what they cannot do and when it comes to cycling and it's predominantly male fan base, many of whom race themselves, watching women ride an event they could themselves do well in is far less awe-inspiring that watching a load of Elite males do things they could only dream of doing etc. Sorry, but that's just the way things are.Tom Butcher wrote:You think it's good to have separate competitions for women - but you see them very much as 2nd class competition. You don't recognise that the achievement of the best women should be accorded as much merit as the achievement of the best men.
Those opportunities that already exist of course! Any woman can take up road racing and compete in restricted women's-only RR's, or against the men if they choose. There are plenty of successful women cyclists offering a role model such as Nicole Cooke, Victoria Pendleton and so on. All this is great and very positive, but it does not change the fact that male elite racing will always be seen as the pinnacle of the sport.Tom Butcher wrote:what exactly are the opportunities for women to excell at sport in your world ? Who would the female sporting role models be for aspiring girls and young women ?
In general the women who win events such as the London marathon do compete at about the same level as a good to very good club runner, coming home in about 2 hours 22 to 2 hours 24 as opposed to the male winner coming home in about 2.05 - to 2.07. Radcliff obviously can better this but, like Beryl Burton, she is something of an exception. As to Cooke, yes , I would say that she is on a par with a good 2nd cat. As was pointed out on another thread when Cooke rode the 2/3/4 Ras Cymru in 2008 she hardly dominated the race, coming in 5th on GC, and this was only weeks before she went on to win the Olympics. When I was a second cat and raced / trained with some of the women on the national squad they could give the 3rd cats a hard time but not a decent second cat. My own best 10 mile TT time - achieved on a normal road bike with clip on tri-bars - was faster than the women’s competition record at the time and so on.Tom Butcher wrote:In your view Paula Radcliffe is no more than a very good club runner, Nicole Cooke a decent 2nd cat.
By the way, I am not saying that women are always incapable of performing at 'male like' levels of excellence. I have already mentioned sport climbing where the best women are more 'neo-pros' than 2nd cats in relation to the men. In cycling though, the gap between the best men and the best women is huge.
Here's another thread that plays with a few figures:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... sc&start=00 -
And the way to achieve this is cut the number of male events in a sport that is already woefully under-represented at the Olympics?stagehopper wrote:Cooke (and Pendleton) has wanted equal opportunities for both male and female cyclists at the Olympics. As happens in other two comparable multi-event sports Athletics and Swimming.0 -
Of course you would agree with Tom as you understandably want to see more kudos being given to women's racing. Unfortunately perhaps, and whatever we might want, the market will decide.BeaconRuth wrote:Well done Tom. You're saying all the things I would. Bernie's views are confused and illogical.
As to being 'confused and illogical', I was thinking the same about many of your own posts! For example, your view that the level of competition is irrelevant. Quote
'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.'
My reply to this was:
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…
Perhaps you could point out where my logic is in error on this point.
0 -
We should all be able to agree that men's racing should not be favoured over women's.
We should all be able to agree that there should be the same number of men's and women's events in the Olympics, with one possible qualification. I think that there's a good argument for getting rid of the men's road events.
The Olympics should represent the pinnacle in sport. In track, in BMX, in MTB and in women's road (arguably) they do. In men's road, they don't. So why not get rid of them, and have a full(er) track/mtb programme?
The market may dictate that male road racers get more money than female ones - women will have a hard time equalling that due to the history of men's races, but to argue that they shouldn't aspire to equal money is plain sexism. And just because they get less money doesn't mean they have less merit.
As for the track, women's races are as entertaining as men's. But, the UCI could help by making them true equals - 1km instead of 500m tt, 4k instead of 3k pursuit, equal team numbers in team pursuit and team sprint.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Winning any sporting competition is a praiseworthy achievement but there are reasons why women's events tend to be valued less. In cycling women's races are shorter and slower; there are far fewer women competing which tends to lower the standard of the competition;
people like to see other human beings do what they cannot do and when it comes to cycling and it's predominantly male fan base, many of whom race themselves, watching women ride an event they could themselves do well in is far less awe-inspiring that watching a load of Elite males do things they could only dream of doing etc. Sorry, but that's just the way things are.
You are making two distinct points there. The first is also the one that Old Welshman and a couple of others have made - that in cycling the level of competition is lower for the women than the men.
Yes you may have a point in some sports. But as the father of a girl who is very into sport I have seen how much more difficult it is for her to take part when boys in the playground are constantly telling her she can't play in their football game because she is a girl. Luckily she's got past that and because she plays in a mixed boys team with some of the lads at school she has earnt their respect - but she had an extra hurdle to jump over that the boys didn't. In cycling how much more difficult is it for a young woman to go out on chain gangs etc where she has to perform at the level of the men. For the elite woman how much more difficult to keep motivated where the rewards aren't stardom and a half million pound contract but subsistence wages? Yes it might be that after considering all that you still think women's cycling less competitive - I wouldn't necessarily argue - but it's not so simple as just looking at the numbers of competitors because there are a different set of challenges to overcome.
BUT for you Bernie that's a red herring - you (not necessarily the others) are arguing that women's sport is almost always intrinsically due less merit because of their relative lack of strength/speed/power etc. It wouldn't matter to you if 90% of the competitors in a sport for women - if they couldn't beat the men then for you their achievements are less. If that is what you get from sport then nobody can deny that for you then womens sport is less valuable - but I think you have a rather sad view of sport. What I enjoy in sport is primarily the contest between teams or individuals, the drama, the tactics, the emotion - and added to that the recognition of achievement where that contest is at the top level. All of that can apply equally to mens and womens sport. Yes in cycling the mens events often have an extra sparkle because of the money spent on them, the coverage, the history etc that create greater drama and a better contest - but that isn't intrinsic to it being male competition. In tennis or athletics womens events are absolutely as enthralling as mens - because it doesn't matter than they aren't quite as powerful as men - the achievement, the contest and the emotion are equal and that is what draws most of us to sport.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Is there the sufficient quality to change the number of team members in the pursuit and sprint and allow the events to remain competitve?Dgh wrote:As for the track, women's races are as entertaining as men's. But, the UCI could help by making them true equals - 1km instead of 500m tt, 4k instead of 3k pursuit, equal team numbers in team pursuit and team sprint.0 -
Have I really? I have said that because of the higher ultimate level of performance, men's racing will always been seen as being the pinnacle of the sport - and have a higher 'market value', but I did not argue that women's racing 'lacked merit'. If anything I have argued that if we are to be consistent we should recognise the merit not just in women's racing but also in other non-elite male and female competitions. If the quality of the racing is what really counts, rather than how far or fast the competitors are going, surely more kudos should be given to non-elite male (and female) competitions as well as elite women's racing? To do otherwise and to treat women's racing as being a 'special case' purely because the competitors are women is just reverse sexism, patronising or both. (Apparently, the under 23 World RR Championships wasn’t even televised in the UK, but I am sure the racing was well worth watching).Tom Butcher wrote:...you (not necessarily the others) are arguing that women's sport is almost always intrinsically due less merit because of their relative lack of strength/speed/power etc.
I wonder why you place an emphasis on 'achievement where that contest is at the top level'? Is not a win a 1st cat RR by a gritty second cat just as worthy, if not a greater, achievement than a win in an elite male or female RR by a genetically gifted individual? How do you define the 'top level'? In terms of the speed and distance of the races I suppose... you can see where this is heading I am sure. Ok, so you also mention the importance of the quality of the contest, the tactics and so on, but surely these can all be found in a local RR as much as a Classic?Tom Butcher wrote:What I enjoy in sport is primarily the contest between teams or individuals, the drama, the tactics, the emotion - and added to that the recognition of achievement where that contest is at the top level.
As I said earlier, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in those arguments that want to both emphasise the importance of ultimate achievement and also claim that women's cycling represents 'ultimate achievement' as much as male elite racing. It seems that this can only be done by arguing that special consideration should be given to women's competition for no other reason than the competitors are women. On the other hand if we are to argue that the speed and distance of the competition is essentially irrelevant and it is the quality of the racing which counts, if 'reverse sexism' is not to result, once again the argument needs to be applied equally to non-elite male racing.0 -
"Have I really? I have said that because of the higher ultimate level of performance, men's racing will always been seen as being the pinnacle of the sport - and have a higher 'market value', but I did not argue that women's racing 'lacked merit'. "
"As I said earlier, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in those arguments that want to both emphasise the importance of ultimate achievement and also claim that women's cycling represents 'ultimate achievement' as much as male elite racing."
Does not being a lesser achievement mean lacking equivalent merit ? Your argument is clearly contradictory here.
For me the achievement of being the best female is not inherently less than being the best male. Why should it be so ? You say I am making special allowances for women - you are accusing me of "sexism" against men. If recognising the genetic differences between men and women and making allowances for that in the structure of society and sport is sexism then guilty as charged.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
The contradiction is not mine, I have merely pointed out the contradiction that exists when people try to argue that sport is all about the highest possible level of performance that human beings can achieve and at the same time argue that the ultimate level of performance is not relevant when assessing women's competitions. In fact I have argued that one way to resolve this contradiction would be to accept that there is equal merit in many non-superlative sporting achievements, as when a gritty 2nd or 3rd cat performs above themselves in a higher category of event. However to do this we would have to accept the same principle across the board, not just in relation to women's competitions.Tom Butcher wrote:Does not being a lesser achievement mean lacking equivalent merit ? Your argument is clearly contradictory here.
Yes, 'recognising the genetic differences between men and women' and structuring society in a way that reflects those differences has been commonly attacked as being 'sexist'! Thing is it is usually only called sexism when rather than giving women special dispensation in recognition of such 'genetic differences' (for example by creating sporting events for women from which men are barred), it acts against the interest of women. It reminds me of my university days when it was considered 'sexist' to say something like ‘women are more emotional than men' but perfectly acceptable to dress up the same idea in a way that was derogatory to men by saying something like 'men are emotional cripples'. Similarly, 'affirmative action' or 'positive discrimination' is still discrimination, no matter how one tries to dress it up!Tom Butcher wrote:If recognising the genetic differences between men and women and making allowances for that in the structure of society and sport is sexism then guilty as charged.0
