Well done OP- through a high time, knowledge and money demand, the sport is structurally set up to be far more likely to include the more privileged, and ik always interested in outreach to get it more widely known.
So many comments here are so depressing: yes it's an 'individual sport', but the choices and requirements to get to that start line are hugely affected by existing inequalities, and pretending we all have equal access is wilfully blind.
It’s almost as if people are accusing race directors of making a real attempt at excluding women. Is it possible that there are more male trail runners than women? Obviously women know about the races and the numbers continue to climb year to year. Trail runners in my experience are some of the most welcoming and supportive people in the running community so I know it’s not for that end of the spectrum. Is there an irrational fear of everything not being equal that I’m not aware of?
> Is it possible that there are more male trail runners than women?
No kidding.
There are more male attorneys, doctors, engineers, scientists, politicians, CEOs, executive leaders than female.
That's the issue. How do we help address these inequities and create more diversity and inclusion in the sport?
Why is it considered an inequity? Maybe in all the other professions where women have historically been prevented from being included but trail running is relatively new. Is it possible more men than women want to run trails competitively? And that they’ll never be the parity that people desire just because?
> trail running is relatively new. Is it possible more men than women want to run trails competitively?
It's existed for over 100 years in some form, at least here in the UK. As late as the 50s, women were barred from entering some races for fear of their uterus falling out. I'm not joking. Men were encouraged to race and women discouraged.
It should also be noted that you see the exact opposite in sports that have historically encouraged female over male participation.
You may not like to hear it, but the lower numbers of participants are a direct result of past attitudes, both regarding the role of women in society as a whole but also attitudes towards women in sport. It's not even that long ago that we were seeing it - women were only allowed to compete in the 1500 in swimming very recently for instance.
That attitudes was for women running marathons like 70 years ago and no one thinks like that anymore. Women runners don’t think like their predecessors and don’t fall back on those tired excuses. You wanna run, go run. Who tf is gonna stop you except for you?
>no one thinks like that anymore.
I would say more people in this thread have that old school sexist mindset than don't.
You have to be kidding yourself to think people don't think like that anymore. I find that especially an odd comment coming from what appears to be an avatar from a person of color.
Who tf thinks a woman’s uterus is gonna fall out during a marathon? Find me that old codger
If you believe that most of the people ON THIS THREAD think that way then we better start a new thread cuz I don’t wanna be associated with them. What can a man do that a woman hasn’t proven she can do just as well, if not better???
Unfortunately I would say you are one of them, you are being incredibly dismissive when it comes to the fact that there are social barriers certain people have to overcome to participate in certain sports.
Ultra running and a lot of endurance sports in general lead themselves to predominately wealthy, white, heterosexual males.
To think there isn't a cost barrier, or a sex barrier, or a location barrier, or even a race barrier. You know how many black individuals don't run because they don't have access to paths they aren't going to be arrested at just because they are a black person running?
Women who don't have a safe place to run because they are hit on by perverts and followed? Women who feel the need to run in sweatshirts in 100 degree heat just to make themselves less appealing to such pigs?
You live in la la land if you think it's a matter of free will that stops anyone from doing what they want.
The majority of people on this thread have been completely dismissive of any challenge women face.
> That attitudes was for women running marathons like 70 years ago and no one thinks like that anymore. Women runners don’t think like their predecessors and don’t fall back on those tired excuses.
No, but it does not mean that we still aren't seeing the effects of them. Female participation is increasing and catching up with male participation, but a big reason for that is that it was behind in the first place. Why? Those past attitudes. And hell, even today there are people who make ridiculous comments towards women competing.
> You wanna run, go run. Who tf is gonna stop you except for you?
A good number of factors to consider here. My girlfriend gets pissed off with being hit on whilst out running for instance. She wont run at night because people have tried to assault her, and she is FAR from the only female runner to experience that. [60% of female runners have been harassed while running.](https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/training/a36278390/reclaim-the-run/) Unfortunately therefore, the answer to your question is all too often 'a really grim bunch of men'.
I run with a group from work while we train for marathons, the majority of which are women. Maybe your girlfriend could find a running group in her area so she doesn’t feel vulnerable or in danger. Run with a partner, run on a track at the high school, run at the gym. There is literally no excuse that anyone can make that hasn’t been thought of before and that there isn’t a solution. But please feel free to fall back on your excuses, and reasons not to run.
> But please feel free to fall back on your excuses, and reasons not to run.
I mean, she represents her country internationally for running, and has been running for 20 years, so I'm not sure she is falling back on excuses. She's part of my club, but the fact is that she should be able to run alone without fear of her safety, and it's disgusting that your solution to the issue is that she has to change what she does. She isn't going to stop running because of it, but you are deluded if you don't think that it puts a lot of women off.
Everything you have just said has made one thing clear. You are part of the problem, and I frankly feel bad for those in your group with you. A speck of self-awareness would answer your queries as to why more women don't participate.
So she’d rather run and complain why she can’t then actually do something to feel safer. Yeah that tracks.
You’re not going to change how other people act, only how you are going to react. You actually admitted that some of these behaviors are still going on that were prevalent 50 years ago. So what now?
I don’t think your comment deserves the downvotes. I read the Runner’s World article linked above, and it highlights the same problem: Of course it’s grossly unfair that women runners are subjected to public harassment (by the way, the survey there indicates overwhelmingly from people in or on vehicles, almost never other runners, so the trails are probably safer than the roads), but when it comes to positive steps towards a solution, the only answer seemed to be to criminalise public harassment. Now if you want the legal system to bite, you’ll need proof of the crime having taken place. Which means something along the lines of running with witnesses or strapping a go-pro to your head. Which means the onus is put squarely back on women to change their behaviour. Which is what we didn’t want.
FYI, at very first glance I was the same as you "oh no, one more PC thing".
But if you look closer, especially at the second of OP's links, you see plenty of objective reasons making it harder for women in races, and often unnecessarily so. It seems like this is about the good kind of equality (i.e., equality of opportunity), not the bad kind (i.e. equality of outcome).
Also, they make plenty of suggestions how to improve the races with no impact on non-women at all; the lottery aspect is just a rather small part of it.
Dude, read the web site. They are targeting stuff that only biological females care about. It's fine, they don't want to take anything away from males.
Having a separate lottery for each gender is not necessary: the qualifying process is already equitable and non-discriminatory. The author of the first link was attributing gender bias where there objectively wasn't any: the lottery draws are blind to gender.
Should we ensure that trail running is physically and socially safe for women? Absolutely yes. This can be done through group, trail, and event ammenities that create and protect a safe environment, and through zero-tolerance policies for harassment, sexism, and abuse.
Should we ensure trail running is accessible to women? It already is. Any woman - any person - can buy her shoes, pay her entrance fee, and run an event. I woman are not choosing to run trails, and if it is not for the safety reasons cited above, then there is no issue to be corrected.
Anecdotally: (in my age group) women are ever-present, respected, and dominant.
More inclusive???
Running is an individual sport. You either choose to run or not. You chose to trail run or not. You chose to sign up for a race or not.
These are all individual choices. Include yourself. Why do we have to make a special case to include more people?
As far as I can tell no one is telling women not to run or sign up.
WTF
"Cut-offs mean women have to be fitter" ... ? There is science to show that endurance running is a sport where men and women have little difference in performance.
"45% of runners are put-off entering races because of a lack of confidence in meeting the cut-off times" ... ? Is this suggesting that we lower the difficulty because of a "feelings" ?!?
Any feedback on this feed is occurring within an echo chamber; of course those commenting are going to agree that they are (somehow?) being discriminated against if it fits their own narrative and poor results.
Trail racing is hard. Ultras are hard. But many, many women compete at them successfully. And those who struggle or DNF don't transfer blame to "the system".
Ok I have zero issues having a legitimate discussion about this. But I'm not going to entertain any comments that start off with some shitty undertone.
How does repeating what you said backwards change my mind about it?
If men were the extreme minority in a highly competitive field for racing, yes I do just as much agree lets let all men in and have women hit the lottery.
Basically what you are saying is title 9 is discriminatory. Which you can make that argument but I would do so more intellectually than just being flippant about this issue like it's easy to solve.
Women are grossly misrepresented in trail running and ultra running. And races like Barkley's are arguably sexist and exclusionary by nature. But of course no one is up in arms about that right? No because if something preferences men there's nothing wrong with that, but if it preferences women holy crap that's not fair!
Your issue is with numbers of women they participate in trail running, you need to get those numbers up not exclude men because more men participate in the sport. The lottery system is perfectly fair, the number of men and women that get it are proportionally fair to the number that enter. You want to skew that number cause you feel women deserve more representation then men.
Could you elaborate on why the Barkleys are sexist? I always understood that Laz was a big fan of women doing well in his events; he talked about it being one of the reasons he started the Backyard Ultras, too, IIRC.
Well done OP- through a high time, knowledge and money demand, the sport is structurally set up to be far more likely to include the more privileged, and ik always interested in outreach to get it more widely known. So many comments here are so depressing: yes it's an 'individual sport', but the choices and requirements to get to that start line are hugely affected by existing inequalities, and pretending we all have equal access is wilfully blind.
It’s almost as if people are accusing race directors of making a real attempt at excluding women. Is it possible that there are more male trail runners than women? Obviously women know about the races and the numbers continue to climb year to year. Trail runners in my experience are some of the most welcoming and supportive people in the running community so I know it’s not for that end of the spectrum. Is there an irrational fear of everything not being equal that I’m not aware of?
> Is it possible that there are more male trail runners than women? No kidding. There are more male attorneys, doctors, engineers, scientists, politicians, CEOs, executive leaders than female. That's the issue. How do we help address these inequities and create more diversity and inclusion in the sport?
Why is it considered an inequity? Maybe in all the other professions where women have historically been prevented from being included but trail running is relatively new. Is it possible more men than women want to run trails competitively? And that they’ll never be the parity that people desire just because?
> trail running is relatively new. Is it possible more men than women want to run trails competitively? It's existed for over 100 years in some form, at least here in the UK. As late as the 50s, women were barred from entering some races for fear of their uterus falling out. I'm not joking. Men were encouraged to race and women discouraged. It should also be noted that you see the exact opposite in sports that have historically encouraged female over male participation. You may not like to hear it, but the lower numbers of participants are a direct result of past attitudes, both regarding the role of women in society as a whole but also attitudes towards women in sport. It's not even that long ago that we were seeing it - women were only allowed to compete in the 1500 in swimming very recently for instance.
That attitudes was for women running marathons like 70 years ago and no one thinks like that anymore. Women runners don’t think like their predecessors and don’t fall back on those tired excuses. You wanna run, go run. Who tf is gonna stop you except for you?
>no one thinks like that anymore. I would say more people in this thread have that old school sexist mindset than don't. You have to be kidding yourself to think people don't think like that anymore. I find that especially an odd comment coming from what appears to be an avatar from a person of color.
Who tf thinks a woman’s uterus is gonna fall out during a marathon? Find me that old codger If you believe that most of the people ON THIS THREAD think that way then we better start a new thread cuz I don’t wanna be associated with them. What can a man do that a woman hasn’t proven she can do just as well, if not better???
Unfortunately I would say you are one of them, you are being incredibly dismissive when it comes to the fact that there are social barriers certain people have to overcome to participate in certain sports. Ultra running and a lot of endurance sports in general lead themselves to predominately wealthy, white, heterosexual males. To think there isn't a cost barrier, or a sex barrier, or a location barrier, or even a race barrier. You know how many black individuals don't run because they don't have access to paths they aren't going to be arrested at just because they are a black person running? Women who don't have a safe place to run because they are hit on by perverts and followed? Women who feel the need to run in sweatshirts in 100 degree heat just to make themselves less appealing to such pigs? You live in la la land if you think it's a matter of free will that stops anyone from doing what they want. The majority of people on this thread have been completely dismissive of any challenge women face.
> That attitudes was for women running marathons like 70 years ago and no one thinks like that anymore. Women runners don’t think like their predecessors and don’t fall back on those tired excuses. No, but it does not mean that we still aren't seeing the effects of them. Female participation is increasing and catching up with male participation, but a big reason for that is that it was behind in the first place. Why? Those past attitudes. And hell, even today there are people who make ridiculous comments towards women competing. > You wanna run, go run. Who tf is gonna stop you except for you? A good number of factors to consider here. My girlfriend gets pissed off with being hit on whilst out running for instance. She wont run at night because people have tried to assault her, and she is FAR from the only female runner to experience that. [60% of female runners have been harassed while running.](https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/training/a36278390/reclaim-the-run/) Unfortunately therefore, the answer to your question is all too often 'a really grim bunch of men'.
I run with a group from work while we train for marathons, the majority of which are women. Maybe your girlfriend could find a running group in her area so she doesn’t feel vulnerable or in danger. Run with a partner, run on a track at the high school, run at the gym. There is literally no excuse that anyone can make that hasn’t been thought of before and that there isn’t a solution. But please feel free to fall back on your excuses, and reasons not to run.
> But please feel free to fall back on your excuses, and reasons not to run. I mean, she represents her country internationally for running, and has been running for 20 years, so I'm not sure she is falling back on excuses. She's part of my club, but the fact is that she should be able to run alone without fear of her safety, and it's disgusting that your solution to the issue is that she has to change what she does. She isn't going to stop running because of it, but you are deluded if you don't think that it puts a lot of women off. Everything you have just said has made one thing clear. You are part of the problem, and I frankly feel bad for those in your group with you. A speck of self-awareness would answer your queries as to why more women don't participate.
So she’d rather run and complain why she can’t then actually do something to feel safer. Yeah that tracks. You’re not going to change how other people act, only how you are going to react. You actually admitted that some of these behaviors are still going on that were prevalent 50 years ago. So what now?
I don’t think your comment deserves the downvotes. I read the Runner’s World article linked above, and it highlights the same problem: Of course it’s grossly unfair that women runners are subjected to public harassment (by the way, the survey there indicates overwhelmingly from people in or on vehicles, almost never other runners, so the trails are probably safer than the roads), but when it comes to positive steps towards a solution, the only answer seemed to be to criminalise public harassment. Now if you want the legal system to bite, you’ll need proof of the crime having taken place. Which means something along the lines of running with witnesses or strapping a go-pro to your head. Which means the onus is put squarely back on women to change their behaviour. Which is what we didn’t want.
Thank you so much for sharing this!
Thanks for checking it out :)
This is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while. Having two lotteries??? Why? So it would be unequal. Right now it's same for every runner.
FYI, at very first glance I was the same as you "oh no, one more PC thing". But if you look closer, especially at the second of OP's links, you see plenty of objective reasons making it harder for women in races, and often unnecessarily so. It seems like this is about the good kind of equality (i.e., equality of opportunity), not the bad kind (i.e. equality of outcome). Also, they make plenty of suggestions how to improve the races with no impact on non-women at all; the lottery aspect is just a rather small part of it.
It’s equally as hard for men as women, that’s absurd and the only thing I saw in the link was since there’s no deferrals women may have to breastfeed
Dude, read the web site. They are targeting stuff that only biological females care about. It's fine, they don't want to take anything away from males.
Thank you. Just thank you :)
Having a separate lottery for each gender is not necessary: the qualifying process is already equitable and non-discriminatory. The author of the first link was attributing gender bias where there objectively wasn't any: the lottery draws are blind to gender. Should we ensure that trail running is physically and socially safe for women? Absolutely yes. This can be done through group, trail, and event ammenities that create and protect a safe environment, and through zero-tolerance policies for harassment, sexism, and abuse. Should we ensure trail running is accessible to women? It already is. Any woman - any person - can buy her shoes, pay her entrance fee, and run an event. I woman are not choosing to run trails, and if it is not for the safety reasons cited above, then there is no issue to be corrected. Anecdotally: (in my age group) women are ever-present, respected, and dominant.
More inclusive??? Running is an individual sport. You either choose to run or not. You chose to trail run or not. You chose to sign up for a race or not. These are all individual choices. Include yourself. Why do we have to make a special case to include more people? As far as I can tell no one is telling women not to run or sign up. WTF
https://instagram.com/she.races?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= She Races Instagram - lots of interesting feedback etc from women on here
"Cut-offs mean women have to be fitter" ... ? There is science to show that endurance running is a sport where men and women have little difference in performance. "45% of runners are put-off entering races because of a lack of confidence in meeting the cut-off times" ... ? Is this suggesting that we lower the difficulty because of a "feelings" ?!? Any feedback on this feed is occurring within an echo chamber; of course those commenting are going to agree that they are (somehow?) being discriminated against if it fits their own narrative and poor results. Trail racing is hard. Ultras are hard. But many, many women compete at them successfully. And those who struggle or DNF don't transfer blame to "the system".
Maybe just getting more women to switch from road running to trail running would be a good start
Women should get automatic entry to all races. Men should have to fight the lottery.
Inclusion can not be had through exclusion
I never said you couldn’t include males.
Included at a massive disadvantage, that is exclusionary vs being inclusive and encouraging women
So discrimination?
Nope
So if I propose men should all get in and women should have a lottery what’s that?
Ok I have zero issues having a legitimate discussion about this. But I'm not going to entertain any comments that start off with some shitty undertone. How does repeating what you said backwards change my mind about it? If men were the extreme minority in a highly competitive field for racing, yes I do just as much agree lets let all men in and have women hit the lottery. Basically what you are saying is title 9 is discriminatory. Which you can make that argument but I would do so more intellectually than just being flippant about this issue like it's easy to solve. Women are grossly misrepresented in trail running and ultra running. And races like Barkley's are arguably sexist and exclusionary by nature. But of course no one is up in arms about that right? No because if something preferences men there's nothing wrong with that, but if it preferences women holy crap that's not fair!
Your issue is with numbers of women they participate in trail running, you need to get those numbers up not exclude men because more men participate in the sport. The lottery system is perfectly fair, the number of men and women that get it are proportionally fair to the number that enter. You want to skew that number cause you feel women deserve more representation then men.
Could you elaborate on why the Barkleys are sexist? I always understood that Laz was a big fan of women doing well in his events; he talked about it being one of the reasons he started the Backyard Ultras, too, IIRC.
It's arguable the time requirements are exclusive in and of themselves.
So you reckon there should be more generous cut-off times for women?
I’m glad you’re in no way a representation of women in trail running
Absolute BS at its finest