That "women-only" thing, again

 

Today's run (treadmill): 26 minutes

Runner's World ran a story on their site today that reminded me of a post I did in June 2012. The RW article is titled "Do Women-Only Races Still Have a Purpose?"and my post was titled "Are gender-specific races sexist?" In both posts, the point was made that the original reason for having "women-only" races was to provide a safe experience for women.

I didn't write my 2012 post to debate that reasoning. I agreed that women-only races were a good idea back in 1972 when women were marginalized as competitors. Even worse, women encountered hostility from men who were clearly threatened by female competition. But in 2014, gender plays no role in the outcome of an open race and I have never seen hostility directed towards women at any event. In fact, in 2013, almost 2/3 of participants in open races are women (per the RW article).

I think what continues to bother me about women-only races is the tacit suggestion that: 1. women are still disenfranchised, 2. women have not yet achieved parity with men in non-professional competitions and 3. women need to be treated differently. This type of exclusion would not fly in other circumstances where a population's civil rights have been restricted. Can you imagine if someone suggested a "gay-only" race to the LGBT community or a race that excluded all but one ethnicity? You can say this is different, but is it really?

Despite my arguments, I appreciate that many women seem to love the experience and the camaraderie of events like the Mini-10K and the Diva and Princess Half Marathons. But I still think it supports a double standard.

What female runners like to blog about

Image courtesy of MilesToBlog

Today's run (street): 3.25 miles

In addition to my normal publishing channels and RSS, I post on a private Facebook group page called "Miles to Blog." This is a group of active bloggers who write about their training, motivation and races. The writing is uniformly good and some of these people are very funny. I've found it interesting to read what's important to this group of predominantly female runner/bloggers. Please don't take this as sexist, but I'm amused by the one subject that seems to dominate. Is this a runner thing or a gender thing? Can you guess the subject?

Moving to a different subject,  I got out today for my Hal Higdon prescribed 3 miles + strength run. The strength stuff is still pending. Does carrying the clean laundry upstairs for my wife count? I'm in the fourth week of Hal's intermediate Half Marathon training program, the first formal training program I've ever followed. I've been wondering if it's working and had an interesting experience today that answered that question.

My two challenges for the Brooklyn Half are: 1. Getting my endurance back to the level where I can cover the 13.1 mile distance and 2. Developing the stamina to sustain targeted race pace. The Higdon method involves increasingly long base runs, timed tempos, track intervals and shorter runs. Plus strength training which I'll get to at some point. The idea is to bring the base and speed training together over the 12 week schedule so that the runner is at his or her peak on race day.

I was curious to know whether, in the fourth week of this training, I had gained any speed as a result of this long/slow and short/fast run combination. I was in the second mile of today's run when I broke my rule about checking pace on my watch. My Garmin showed an abysmal pace that was disheartening because I felt like I was running much faster. I took up the effort a little, but a few more checks of the Garmin showed that I was still over 30 secs per mile slower than my target. When I checked my time and distance after the run, I saw that, overall, I'd exactly met my targeted pace.

One thing I learned was that I shouldn't assume that the Garmin is providing accurate real-time pace information. The other thing I learned was that this training is helping (although it took that scare to get me to pick up the pace). Nothing motivates like progress. I just hope it continues.

Are gender-specific races sexist?

Today's run (street): 4.4 miles

My colleague and friend FS ran in the NYRR Mini 10K yesterday, and that got me thinking about gender-specific races. The Mini 10K originates back to the days when women's distance running was virtually banned by most racing associations. The mindset of the time was ridiculous, and it wasn't until the 1984 Olympics that women could finally compete at the full marathon distance. But today, there are no such issues, and the percentage of women finishers at every race distance is over 50%.

Excluding men from women-oriented races doesn't make much sense to me at this point. I suppose women-only events, like the Mini 10K, More Half Marathon and the Disney Princess races, may provide a safe experience that encourages more women into the sport. But is this practice a double standard? Or is it a matter of celebrating every women's right to competitive equality?

Allowing men into these races may risk spoiling the spirit and focus of these important events. But the exclusion of those who wish to compete mirrors the same conditions that integrated single gender races in the first place.

Female competition as a civil right

Deena Kastor won and lost the American marathon record

Today's workout (elliptical): 25 minutes

There is an inspiring article in today's NY Times about Dr. Julia Chase-Brand, a woman who broke barriers by competing in races during a time when the Amateur Athletic Union forbid female competitors. The article describes Dr. Chase-Brand's challenge to assert her civil rights, while she disproved the ridiculous notion that running is dangerous for women. On top of that, she was also forced to endure statements like "Women don’t run. You run. What are you?"

It's unbelievable that these discussions still happened into the 1960's. The sport of running has so many great women competitors. These days, you'll often see more woman runners than men in local races. Yet there are still some bad practices related to gender, like the recent ruling by the IAAF stating that World Records for women can only be attained in women-only races. Just what are these people afraid of?