Race for women only
The Race for Life is a fund raising event which is for females only. CRUK say that the race is for women only because that’s why it was started in 1994. They say have a promise and responsibility to keep it so because of it’s origins. They even go to the extreme to keep that rule by allowing transgender people to enter – so long as they were born female. They allow transgenders because of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, but they blatantly ignore the Equality Act 2010.
It has been noted that they seem to have missed a loop hole. Male dogs can run so long as they are accompanied by their female owner.
They also go to the extreme of not highlighting that it is females only, except for the pink all over the site. It’s only when you apply that you notice that the drop down list for title only lists Miss, Ms, Mrs, Dr, Prof, and Rev. You would get the impression that they are a bit embarrassed about it not be fair and equal.
Many people get the impression that it’s because its a race for breast cancer. I’m sorry but men get breast cancer too. Admittedly in smaller percentages but they still do. Even if was just for female breast cancer, women aren’t the only ones who suffer. The partners, sons, and fathers of the women also suffer, not just the mothers and daughters.
Even CRUK admit that it’s not just about breast cancer any more, stating that someone gets diagnosed with a cancer every two minutes as part of the blurb on the website. That implies any cancer for everyone, male or female.
So why does it carry on being a female (and young boy) event? Yes, there is an exception. Males under the age of 12 are now allowed to enter after a mother with cancer complained that her sons couldn’t join them on the race. It’s not like attempts have been made to change the rules to allow men. An equality campaigner even took CRUK to the Equal Opportunities Commission in 2003 but lost. Maybe because he, … opps just let the cat out of the bag. Yep, the equality campaigner was male. More seriously, the EOC denied John Taylor’s claim because it wasn’t within their remit of employment, education, housing and provision of goods, facilities and services to the public. Mr Taylor even tried to come to a compromise by asking CRUK to set up a male only run. It could cover male cancers such as testicular and prostate cancers. CRUK have not made any attempt to set up such a race.
Another reason why CRUK say the race if for women only is because it’s a fun run. It’s not designed to be competitive, which if you read between the lines means that they think that if any men were involved that their testosterone would overpower them and it would become a race for the fastest times. But men race in fun runs without attempting to be competitive. Women also do race competitively, just look at the olympics. And I seriously doubt that some don’t do it to beat some personal best time. In fact some keep track of their time and talk about beating it.
So should it be allowed to be the only event which is sexist? I mean there are many other charity fun runs so it’s not like men don’t have a choice of other races to enter to raise money for charity. But should they be excluded from joining in a charity event to raise money for cancers that struck down their mothers, sisters, wives, or daughters?
SBML
Apologies to the ex-landlady for suddenly going all male and macho. This will not be a regular affair. This blog is a friendly site for all sexes and will remain so.
-
1
May 22, 2012 at 10:02 -
Their explanation should begin “Even though more men than women die of cancer…”
-
2
May 22, 2012 at 10:09 -
People should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as it harms no one. And harm should be defined sensibly. That is the libertarian view. If women want to run, jump or stand still with no men involved good luck to them. Likewise so should I or any other man if we so desire. Trouble is we have allowed the prodnoses to regulate us and tell us what to do and think to the extent that we forget that not so long ago when the PC brigade first appeared, most of us snorted with laughter when they made their utterances.
So gallop on girls and raise lots of lolly, you never know, your efforts might find a cure for what ails me.
-
3
May 22, 2012 at 10:35 -
5
May 22, 2012 at 10:44 -
I’m inclined to agree with AndyS but it is a one way street.
Consider the Boy Scouts, orginally boys only with a partner organisation formed later for the girls. Now the Boy Scouts are the Scouts and they take both sexes, (nuts to that damn g word!) while Girlguiding UK (‘girls in the lead’) just takes girls. It is expected that soon there will be more girls in the Scouts than boys.
-
6
May 22, 2012 at 10:59 -
I’ve noticed that, despite the best efforts of the Equality police, there are still subtle differences between men & women.
Oh, and when will there be a men-only swimming session at my local pool? They seem reluctant to answer my FOI request about the blatantly sexist exclusion of men from some sessions.
-
7
May 22, 2012 at 17:47 -
Try the ‘ladies only’ commercial gyms which seem fine, do you reckon a man only gym would be tolerated?
-
8
May 22, 2012 at 19:52 -
Why not? (Just like women, men gathering together as a group do not suddenly become gay.)
The swimming pool has “women only” sessions – I’ve never assumed it’s a lesbian event. -
9
May 23, 2012 at 14:00 -
There’s no problem with that, particularly if you mean gay men. The Key West resort along with certain single-sex clubs continue to exist. If they want to do gym, that’s up to them.
(Doesn’t apply to Christian hoteliers, obviously).
-
-
-
10
May 22, 2012 at 12:20 -
On the basis that the EOC remit covers only “employment, education, housing and provision of goods, facilities and services to the public”, I suppose we can look forward to a “Race For Whites”, raising money for disadvantaged indiginous citizens who can’t afford to flee the growing ethnic ghetto in which they are forced to live though poverty.
At least the palefaces might stand a chance of winning that one.
-
11
May 22, 2012 at 13:34 -
Transgenders who are born female? That’ll be those whose preferred presentation is as a male then. Seems somewhat illogical given that it is those who are bon male but present as female who are likly to fit in better.
Still, last time I heard, organisers of various ‘Reclaim the Night’ marches were similarly hostile.
Simple, petty gender politics if you ask me (not that anyone one did).
-
12
May 22, 2012 at 13:34 -
Anyway, seeing as how CRUK is more of a political lobbying organisation than a charity these days I can’t see the point of raising money for them.
-
13
May 22, 2012 at 14:00 -
XX More seriously, the EOC denied John Taylor’s claim because it wasn’t within their remit of employment, education, housing and provision of goods, facilities and services to the public. XX
Asuming this “run” is not in its entirity, taking place on private property, what about DENYING services/facilitys to parts of the public, on grounds of gender?
I can’t use a road because a load of dykes are having a shindig, then I am being denied a public service.
I have asked similar questions here, when every gym/”sports club” within anything like a reasonable traveling distance, appear to be now “female only” “Jopp” for example (Don’t know if they have polluted the U.K yet?). Yet try and set up a “See how high up the wall you can piss” club that is “men only” and all of a sudden “It is against the constitution. You MUST accept women!”
-
14
May 22, 2012 at 17:28 -
C**ts, the lot of them.
-
15
May 22, 2012 at 17:33 -
Progress! The world was a much better place when we had mens clubs and womens institutes, the sooner everybody ignores the bizarre “equality” act the better.
If you are offended just keep your hands in your pockets when CRUK come fundraising.
-
16
May 22, 2012 at 18:05 -
Stopped giving tham money when I found they were funding the fanatic anti smoking ASH. Another lobby group posing as a charity, I wish they would all just leave us alone.
-
17
May 22, 2012 at 20:55 -
I didn’t only stop giving, I re-wrote my Will, excluding CRUK and any other fake charities – they’ll never know how much they lost, but it would have kept CRUK’s not-so-humble Chief Exec in power-lunches for life (and a lot longer).
It’s now all going to a small local preservation group, who’ll be mighty surprised, as they don’t even know me.My next-door neighbour ran the girlie non-race last week – I declined sponsorship and explained why – if we all do that, they might eventually get the message.
-
-
18
May 22, 2012 at 18:23 -
19
May 22, 2012 at 18:56 -
Presumably they are quite happy to accept money from males – they just don’t want to see them?
-
20
May 22, 2012 at 19:19 -
Suits me fine. They can bugger off and run for a good cause about whilst I get some peace and watch the Grand Prix without any interruption
) -
21
May 22, 2012 at 21:23 -
Well, I’ve no problem watching lightly clad ladies exercise. And I know they have no problems with men marshaling, setting up and taking down the course or otherwise helping. Similarly they have no problems with men donating.
Every RFL event I’ve been involved with has been on parkland- owned by the local council and hired out by them on terms they presumably think are advantageous to the council tax payer.
I find that many ladies feel intimidated by the thought of entering a competitive sport (which running is) and will only do so in an all female environment. For my money enough of them overcome their shyness and go on to run other (mixed) amateur events to make the events worthwhile.
It would however be nice to know why so many women are shy of competitive events- I seriously doubt that the presence of men provides the whole answer. I know far too many competitive women to believe that its just because of their hormones- maybe its how they’re taught? -
22
May 22, 2012 at 22:10 -
Not inteersted in a mysandrist organisation, having had treatment for (male) breast cancer. Instead took part in the London Moonwalk for cancer charities. Despite having a bra painted on the front of my T-shirt, it was a wonderful, almost social gathering, with quite a few other men there as well – readily accepted by the many women who took part. Ignore Race For Life, support the Moonwalk. You know it makes sense. For those interested, just over 9 hours.
-
23
May 22, 2012 at 23:30 -
I’m not much bothered about female do’s, but I do get the hump with charities that play politics.
My non athletic wife did the Moonwalk twice, raised a lot of cash and inspired others to have a go. Gave her a hell of a kick too.
The atmosphere from training to the night was amazing. Three months of enthusiasm and determination.My little sister told me this year one brave woman did the route twice.
Humbling.
-
-
24
May 23, 2012 at 02:00 -
The real purpose of women only events is to add to the ever widening exclusion of men – well mostly exclusion of white heterosexual men from all things which might give such men some degree of power.
And on to untermensch. -
25
May 23, 2012 at 03:12 -
On the day 17 years ago that I attended the Breast Cancer Clinic with my wife, to hear confirmation that she would need surgery (‘Lump-ectomy’) there was an elderly gent sitting nearby. The receptionist – despite having HIS medical notes in her hand – brusquely asked him ‘Where is your wife – it’s time for her appointment?’
We later attended a VERY inclusive and supportive ‘unisex patient group’ – whose work was totally negated for me after her death, when the Hospital Admin sent a glossy brochure seeking ‘donations’ to equip a new Unit “for women” with the condition.Support ‘Moonwalk’
-
26
May 23, 2012 at 06:14 -
Freindly site this may be, but what does one do or say when women are officiously unfreindly – and downright behaviourally ugly – and get support for their sexism from ‘Authorities?
Men are fed up. We are marginalised, demeaned and villified: and that is when we are not being ignored altogether.
I for one have had enough. I do not ‘take it like a man’ anymore. I take it like an assualted, insulted and abused man and HIT back. In a friendly sort of way of course.
-
27
May 23, 2012 at 07:54 -
We have two interesting ones here in the Basque Country:
Faux-military parades which celebrate batles from 200 years ago where the men paraded in uniforms, with functioning rifles (with blanks, we are not total animals) and the women played the roles they played then (wives, cooks, camp followers, which upset some). Our regional government has obliged the parade to allow women to parade as soldiers. This has split families, towns and friends. There are now two parades and demonstrators demonstrate against the other side.
The other are the txokos (men’s gastronomic clubs). Traditionally women have not been allowed in, or only as guests. I am a member of a new txoko. All the members are men and as I have joint ownership of everything in my marriage, I had to make a special deed where my wife recognises that the ownership of the building is an exclusive personal investment. Not sure how that fits with the law currently. Women are always allowed in but cannot reserve space or be the chef. The cleaner is however a woman. Things are changing and many txokos are becoming much more open. It does seem a logical movement, but it is coming naturally. Many women like being invited to a meal where they are not allowed to do anything. That needs changing doesn’t it, lads?
When I cook, I allow women to help in the kitchen (we bought a bankrupt restaurant and we have one hellava kitchen).
The question is that this convention was not contested socially. Men in the Basque Country cook (but not usually at home) and cook amazingly well. But it has become political and people who have no involvement want it to change.
Funny though, women-only gyms are thriving and I want to go to one but can’t, boo-hoo!
-
28
May 23, 2012 at 09:45 -
Just another version of the National Black Police Association. Where can we find the White Police Association?
Sexism like racism seems to be a one way street. -
29
May 23, 2012 at 13:11 -
Idea! Complain to the ASA about the advert. Say you find it homophobic and offensive.
-
30
May 23, 2012 at 21:16 -
I have just received a FB message urging support for a ‘petition’
\\
Thousands of girls across the UK are at risk of genital mutilation, but authorities do nothing to stop it. …&c
\\
My ‘comment’ – “IS there a corresponding petition relating to boys?[Genesis 17:11]”(The ‘originator’ says not – but doesn’t seem interested in the fact – and ‘cannot comment on’ my Biblical ref)
-
31
May 24, 2012 at 09:02 -
Oh lawks, it’s Greenham common all over. Personally I find women only events a laugh, not that they occur very often in life. Have we all got to be together all the time?
)
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }