You know these women only running event things ...is there a particular reason

men are excluded?

Are women usually harrassed in 'normal' running events so feel the need to create an event just for themselves.

Its an odd bit of discrimination in this day and age.

it just another way to stop you racing David.......

on a more serious note our running club used to have a womens only 5k which the men all m,arshalled.that was because there was only a couple of women in the club and they were trying to encourage women into running in  our area........

we stopped the race a few years ago as women were now happier to join the club and i think that we almost have even numbers

seren nos wrote (see)

it just another way to stop you racing David.......

One person told me the reason is because of events like where they are all running in a bra or something to support breast cancer.

But two things there.

1) Then dont run in a bra in public if you dont want to be seen.

2) Have you seen what its like to see a bunch of 50+ year old women running around in a bra? Its like watching a science experiment on the effects of gravity.

I guess, if you are thinking about Race for Life type events, then it is a way of really emphasising the mass participation nature of the event. I appreciate this is a paradox, as you are restricting the field in order to ensure a higher participation rate, but I know lots of female friends who wouldn't consider a normal 5K or 10K event (even a parkrun) but happily enter Race for Life. I think, to be honest, that RfL is targetting a whole different market from people who consider themselves runners.

There seems to be two reasons for these events.

One is that some women sadly don't feel comfortable running with guys about. Be that due to vanity, thinking guys will look down on them for running and getting sweaty or being body concious and thinking men will judge them when they aren't in full make-up etc.

The second tends to be female aimed charity events, such as breast cancer awareness and trying to generate some form of female comradery. Although I know at least in Glasgow there is now a men only 10km the month after the now long running and very popular women's 10km race.

I can't say I see it as an issue. It's not like you'd struggle to find an event to run as a bloke. It's just a shame some women are intimidated for whatever reason in a mixed sex race.

I think you are mixing up Race for Life and the Moonwalk. Race for Life - 5km run or walk, women-only, t-shirts are worn. Moonwalk - 13.1 or 26.2 walk, bras are worn, women and men are allowed to participate as long as they are wearing a bra  

I just finished reading Marathon Woman by Kathrine Switzer, the first woman to run the Boston marathon with an "official" race number (although they did try to kick her out of the race!). I didn't realise that once she retired from marathon she worked for Avon setting up women-only marathons, which were huge. (The Avon marathon in London was the year before the first London Marathon) The aim was both to encourage women who might have felt shy about joining mixed races to participate and to get women's distance running taken seriously enough for IOC to add women's marathon to the Olympics (they wanted to avoid the argument about women only performing well in distance running if they were paced by men). It was a really interesting book as nowadays I think there is an attitude of 'serious' runners looking down on women-only events, but the Avon marathons played a big part in getting women's distance events recognised by the IOC.

I don't like the idea of women-only events.

It doesn't sit well with me that women feel it's OK to discriminate because they are doing it for the "right" reasons: it smacks of Animal Farm - all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I think many people who take part in Race for Life do it not as a race, or even a run, but as a fund-raising event, and I think it's a shame that they exclude half the population.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong but there are men only events too. Perhaps that's not equality, but at least it's equally discriminatory.

Actually I remember now where I saw the old women in their bras and thinking about it I was on a training run and I was running through a council estate thats near to where I live so to be honest, it might not have been a race at all, but just the local lasses hanging around the local Londis.

Screamapillar wrote (see)

I'm not saying either is right or wrong but there are men only events too. Perhaps that's not equality, but at least it's equally discriminatory.

That's just as wrong in my view.  Two wrongs don't make a right, as my mum used to say.

What's the justification for it?  Shy, insecure, body-consious men don't want to run with a bunch of nasty judgemental women?  It will encourage more men into running?  Or just because women have women-only races, so we'll have a men-only one?

I used to question women only races, I have no problem with racing men because I beat most of them But I soon realised that I very much come from a background of being good at sport and confident in it.

Men generally have more confidence to just go out and do it, women don't and there are lots of reasons for this, of course including how women have been excluded historically as sport was organised by men for men (did my degree in this shit all those years ago).

I have done a few women only races, and it's actually an atmosphere that does bring out the confidence of some women who wouldn't race otherwise and yes, it's also great to be leading a race, not that I need that on a personal level but it's pretty cool. However one of those races I talk about had Jo Pavey in it, so I didn't win that one!

I have mixed feelings about women's only events: I think they do serve a purpose in addressing an imbalance in sports in general, and running in this particular case, where women are more likely to feel intimidated by events that seem more competitive, serious, or male-dominated. I think it would be hard to deny either that more men than women take amateur running 'seriously', or that men, in general, tend to run faster. I am not intimidated by male runners at all (though I do wish they would be more careful where they spit during races, it's always the blokes... ) , but when I wanted to join a club, I did e-mail and ask if they had any women members (they were quite proud to be able to reply that they had four!), and even I was a little put off by the thought that I might be the only woman. So I can imagine if I were less good at running, less sure of myself, didn't already do races, etc., a women-only event might be a good way in.

However, I do sometimes feel like these mass-participation neon-pink coloured events do tend to reinforce this perceived divide between serious running and women's sport, which is branded more as a kind of girly keep-fit activity and I wonder if it actually does more to reinforce the idea that women can't expect to be competitive or serious about sport. You see it in all the sports shops too, where the men have serious, useful gear, and the women get lots of neon pink trim and no bloody pockets. Grr.

I agree though that there doesn't seem to be any good reason for men-only events. It seems like a sort of 'well, if you're going to exclude us from YOUR races' reaction that completely sidesteps any of the actual arguments for or against.

kittenkat wrote (see)

. However one of those races I talk about had Jo Pavey in it, so I didn't win that one!

Did you come second?

The runners I feel most sorry for (to turn this on its head a bit) are the fast male club runners who have to be really fast to win anything or to get GFA for London.

literatin wrote (see)

kittenkat wrote (see)

. However one of those races I talk about had Jo Pavey in it, so I didn't win that one!

Did you come second?

No I didn't actually, I was 4th, she knocked me off the podium... Bitch! (Actually Jo is great and a local girl)