Note: This is one of those posts in which I don’t know what I think. It’s also one in which I can’t see a right and a wrong answer. I’ve earlier written about not wishing to patronize runners based upon their speed. Now I wonder if we’re not patronizing runners based upon their gender. Again I have only my perspective to guide me. I wonder what some of my lady friends have to say.
Grete Winning The Mini
One of my FB friends popped a post wondering why there was prize money for men at the Healthy Kidney 10K but none, zilch, nada for women. I responded that NYRR’s prize money race for women was the Mini 10K. In fact, the prize-money is higher for the latter than for the former (unless the HK winner breaks the course-record, which earns a $20,000 bonus). Are women-only races appropriate given the mis-/second-class treatment that women faced (or perhaps still face?) in running?
RVN wrote,
The women only Mini is a historical event highlighting the systematic exclusion of women from competitive running. The kidney run (which I’m running in) is something else…and it’s just weird.
And, she continued,
Because of the historical and systematic exclusion of women from competitive running and sports in general, I think it’s important that there is a space for women athletes and sports events that are promoted for women only. Women are still underrepresented at world class events.
I’ve never given a particular thought to the appropriateness of a women-only event. The Mini marathon has been around for 39 years. My sisters ran it in the early 80s and it was a a celebration of women running. That celebration was implicitly tied to the exclusion of women from many events — the women’s marathon made it to the Olympics only in 1984, which is really shocking as we look back, as is their exclusion from Boston until the 70s. Here’s a review of women and running.
To me, a 53 year old male, I considered the Mini as a chance to bring elite women to New York for a tough race in Central Park, as it is the chance for women to have their own race. Grete ran the Central Park course in under 31:00. New York had another elite race in the Spring, the Trevira Twosome, which by its nature required elites of both sexes. (Each entrant was a man-woman team and the race was scored based upon each team’s combined times. I once did it with my sister but otherwise with a WSSAC teammate.) Only recently has NYRR brought in elite men in the Spring, to the Healthy Kidney and to the USATF national 8K road championship.
Underlying all is the reality that lots of decent-but-not-great men can beat the top women. Like me (in the old days). Every year people would complain in the marathon about such men hanging onto the lead women for “TV face time.” After the 8-mile merge, the women would find themselves mixed in among the men, and was difficult to see them really racing against one another. Now, with the early start, we see that, and I think it elevates the women’s race. It ceases to be a difficult-to-cover afterthought, which is to the good. The irony, of course, being that when NYRRC first allowed women in the marathon the AAU required that they start their race 10 minutes before the men were set to go. So the women simply sat at the start for ten minutes and went off with the men. Now it’s a sign of progress — the women are entitled to compete directly against one another.
Putting aside the clean-racing reality, though, should we have women-only events? Is it patronizing? NYRR has two, the Mini and the More Half. Must there be an equal number of men-only races? I see nothing wrong with the “celebratory” aspect, but should I?
Beyond that, should the Olympic Trials standards differ? The men only have an “A” standard, but even when there was a “B” as well it was, relatively speaking, far tougher than the comparable figures for the women. I don’t know about that one. Personally, I never had the talent to get to the 2:19:04 standard in 1984, but think I could have gotten to 2:25. But it was never in play for me, and I remain in awe of those who can achieve the men’s standard.
I think for comparable women, though, it is in play and it is a great carrot, and I know some women who will likely get it. And I think that’s good. I don’t begrudge them the opportunity as I don’t begrudge them having their own races.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 15, 2010 at 1:12 pm
threlkeld
I do have an opinion about this. The original incarnation of the what today is the Mini 10K was groundbreaking in its day. I’m glad NYRR has kept it around, though. It’s an exciting race in part because it draws an international elite field to what is a relatively small race. When I ran it last in 2008 it was a lot of fun to be in the first corral, right behind those elite women. It’s a cliché, but the excitement in that corral was palpable. I doubt I or the other runners around me will ever get a chance to run (or at least start running) that close to women of that caliber. For me, the Mini this year is going to be one of the highlights of this season for that reason alone.
The Mini is valuable for its history too, insofar as it’s a reminder, should one care to read about its history, of how far women’s running has come in just a few decades. And, perhaps most important, how far it needed to go when that race was started.
Then you’ve got races like the More Half and the Nike Women’s Marathon. I always felt that the More (full) Marathon was a wasted opportunity to spotlight competitive masters women, but I’ve beaten that horse to death already. The Nike race is bizarre because it allows a limited field of men, and a man usually wins it. What’s the point of that?
While I still wish the More full could have grown into something worthy of its promise, I don’t think a race like that is “necessary” today in the way that the Mini was when it first came into being. Women’s running will not suffer one whit by its absence. Similarly, the Nike race is completely unnecessary. It also bugs me that the Nike race seems so focused on traditional trappings of femininity and reinforces stereotypes (do they really need to give out baubles from Tiffany’s?). But then I’ve always been a tomboy.
May 15, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Ewen
We have “A” and “B” standards for men and women down here, but no Olympic Trials. To be selected on international teams one runs the “A” standard in any marathon. The fastest 3 “A” runners are usually selected. If there are no “A” runners, the fastest “B” runner MAY be selected. In events other than the marathon, a “B” runner is automatically selected if they also win the national championships. Of course, this is the same for both women and men.
Women only (local) races were available every weekend when I started running. These were usually half the distance of the men’s races. In the late 80s, slower (often older) men wanted to race short distances so they made the short race available to them. Often the fast women still won these races, but not these days. There are still women only races in most cities.
May 17, 2010 at 1:58 pm
TK
This is one of those questions that I flip-flop on as well. While I think the New York Mini is a terrific race that brings world-class runners to my city, a great tradition and an important reminder of what it used to be like for women in running, I also realize how that may sound ridiculous coming from me (a woman who has never had to face a second of discrimination in my running).
I’ve never run a woman’s only race myself, so I can’t speak from experience if it would be particularly meaningful to me or not. I think it’s important for women to support each other, and to talk about other female runners who they want to emulate or who inspire them. If it takes a race like the Mini to get regular runners like myself to think about our own running in those terms, well then fabulous! But to Julie’s point, race organizers should do it right, treating us like serious athletes. A guy in a tux at the finish line giving me a Tiffany necklace? Thanks but, if a man’s giving me jewelry I hope I’m looking better than I do at the end of a marathon!
One last point. Kathy Switzer’s book Marathon Woman is not only a wonderful autobiography, it is a very cogent and fascinating history of women in running over the last 50 years. There used to be whole race series dedicated to giving women the opportunity to compete against each other on the streets. I can see how, if Switzer was trying to battle such propaganda like “your uterus will fall out if you run,” it would have been important then to organize a series of races just for women–if only to educate!
May 26, 2010 at 9:44 pm
The Houston Rockets « RunWestchester
[...] think there is a double-standard at work here, which Jaymee handles diplomatically, saying “I think it is what it is.” [...]
June 14, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Where I Run « RunWestchester
[...] view, but as a sport, I think it demeaning. I’ve also written about the concept of a women’s-only-race, and on that I think it’s gone from an afterthought for second-class citizens to a [...]
March 4, 2011 at 12:27 am
cg9m
i’d vowed not to comment on your blog this year, as you (and your adulators) well know, i have little regard for your opinion (so what’s the point.) but in a recent conv w/an old college roomie, who’s running boston this year, qual’d and raising $5K for charity to boot, my sis came up…she hasn’t raced at all in the last ten+ years, tho her relatively (just had a baby) recent “training” paces are in the low 7′s…talented woman, always has been. anyhow, i thought of this post b/c i remember, as one of her many reasons for quitting the racing scene, she particularly preferred racing against guys. (and this is someone who in the few california races that she did run, won the women’s overall.) she didn’t like the separate women’s starts that were coming into favor, and felt that in a coed race, she was ‘pushed more’. while i’ll never know what it’s like to be a front-runner, seems as though you could be limited by the field around you. at least, mentally. ie, “if she’s running x, then i’m ok” vs “that dude is running x, and i’m going to kick his backside”. this can actually be motivating for a ‘chick’. (i don’t consider myself competitive, as i’m not fast, but it’s motivating to me in the races i run.)
both of us have run since we were kids (25 yrs ago)…i don’t remember either of us feeling “underrepresented” then, or limited. most of our coaches were encouraging (perhaps too much). (and i’d say that’s a stark contrast to our careers in sci/eng).
after all that, i won’t lie. for myself, i prefer women’s races. but i also prefer suburban, rec races, too. i’m a “different” sort of runner than my sis in some senses, but very much so in terms of this blog. i run races mainly to improve my times, as that’s the “achievement” for me. i’m not in it (or talented enough) to worry too much about passing people (except the occasional aforementioned dude) or winning awards.
and i’d love to have a nike women’s marathon necklace someday- cuter than any race medal. i am that girly. i also think it embraces and celebrates the spirit of the race. and that’s a heck of a course, too!