Is Race for Life sexist?

[fat bastard]

Right, to me it appears that it obviously is, but I'd like to hear if anyone has opinions either way which could maybe facilitate a brief and to the point debate (ha). My reasons are

Only women are allowed to do it. Not only would this be ridiculous even if only women got breast cancer (like men doing a race for prostate cancer and not letting women do it, which men totally should do now because prostate cancer affects the same amount of people but gets a tiny fraction of the funding/publicity), but men can also GET breast cancer, they're not just affected by it.

So why exclude them from this women's-only club? I know it's for charity so criticising it in ANY WAY IS BAD, but still. They let the men come and hand them water and do menial tasks while they race. Imagine that the other way around, it wouldn't happen, you couldn't say it. Also if they let men race they'd surely make a load more money. I mean it's not even a race, you just jog a bit, get tired and walk, nobody's going to not give you the money.

Bring on the Masculinist fight back!!! etc etc

[Fozzy Bear]

Sorry, but it can't be sexist. If something says you must be male to do something, it's sexist (apparently) but it doesn't work the other way round.

This may be sexist (I think it is) but that word can never be applied to things which exclude men.

[DrAlex]

Quoting Fozzy Bear from 11:35, 26th Oct 2007
Sorry, but it can't be sexist. If something says you must be male to do something, it's sexist (apparently) but it doesn't work the other way round.

Indeed, how long do you think a men-only car insurance company would last before the outcry began?

[hr]

The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

[Timata]

Quoting fat bastard from 09:29, 26th Oct 2007
Also if they let men race they'd surely make a load more money.

No, they probably wouldn't, because each race has a limited capacity, and I think they're usually all full. If there wasn't a limit then yes, men entering would make a difference.

As to the why, I looked it up on the Race for Life website, and here's what they have to say:

Race for Life is the only women-only event of this type organised by Cancer Research UK. We restrict entry to women due to the wishes of our participants. It is one of our most successful events because it is a unique opportunity for women to come together in a non-competitive and celebratory atmosphere.

We also organise a thriving series of 10k running events. These take place in beautiful venues across the UK and are open to men and women who want to raise money to support our vital research work.

Taking things to the extreme, if you were going to call Race for Life sexist, you'd probably also have to call single-sex schools sexist, or single-sex residences (like Wardlaw, or the female-only colleges down in Oxbridge). I also don't think its sexist for men to restrict access to Working Men's clubs and golf clubs.

[Haunted]

Technically it is descriminating on the basis of sex. But who ever said that was a bad thing?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[exnihilo]

I like the justification that it's single sex "due to the wishes of out participants". Surely that would be the reason, deemed utterly unacceptable, historically given by any male only event/organisation?

[munchingfoo]

I really wonder when the PC brigade will just realise that there is a fundamental difference between men and women and stop trying to enforce a non-existant equality on us.

I shouldn't imagine it will happen in my lifetime

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[exnihilo]

Fundamental differences? I demand that you be misquoted and lambasted out of context in the press, compelled to apologise, and to resign from any post you might hold. You cad.

[Haunted]

This one should do it.

http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/se ... ainsand288
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 701286.ece

Studies that show women really do have smaller brains than men on avergae.
However there is no conclusive evidence to suggest intelligence scales with brain mass (within a species at least), but it has been shown to scale with surface area.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brai ... _brain.htm

Which I am to understand are approximately equal between the sexes.
Though I read that women can have upto 15% more neurons in higher function areas.
[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[fat bastard]

well i imagine i would be quite different than i am now if someone came along, took away my beard-growing capabilities, cut off my mini-me, shaved me, then somehow rammed a whole massive new bunch of internal organs that can GROW ANOTHER ME someone behind my intentinal tract, and as a garnish sprinkled on a wide variety of associated chemical/hormonal insanities. I don't think equality is about being the same, it's about being like... you know... not any worse/better than each other.

Possibily more should be said about the ridiculousness of the current trend of feminist behavioural absolutism (you know what i mean) and that men shouldn't be hounded for being rammed full of testosterone and not permanently being able to act as they do in the two minutes after they've had a wank. But that's a whole other thing.


Anyway, i'm glad to see I am not alone with the race to life thing. I have been verbally beaten to a pulp for refusing to sponsor a race for lifer on ethical grounds (plus, i'd rather my money went to a more general cancer research fund). Suddenly the crusade doesn't feel quite so lonely. i thank you.

[Foxy Moron]

Why do you care? Do you want to run the Race for Life?

Why not set up your own sponsered 5K run and donate the proceeds to whatever cancer charity you want if you're so bothered? Or are you just one of these people who just likes to have something to complain about and have seen an oppourtunity to do so here? You can moan about it being sexist as much as you like, and perhaps it is, but it's just the way it is. If you want to help cancer charities, there are loads of other things you could do.

[exnihilo]

Of course there are, but that's not the point being made. Would you say "perhaps it is, but it's just the way it is" if things were reversed and a male group was refusing all and any women to participate? I suspect not. I suspect that would be a bad thing.

[Foxy Moron]

Quoting exnihilo from 15:51, 26th Oct 2007
Of course there are, but that's not the point being made. Would you say "perhaps it is, but it's just the way it is" if things were reversed and a male group was refusing all and any women to participate? I suspect not. I suspect that would be a bad thing.

Ok, I see and understand your point. However, we're talking about a 5K fun run here, not the right to vote etc. I wouldn't personally care if men were allowed to go for a run and raise money for cancer and I wasn't. Although I probably would care if it was other things. So you're right in that respect.

Race for Life raises loads of money for cancer research etc every year. Does it really matter if it's women only? It just seems to me, either he really really wants to do Race for Life but he can't because he's a man, or he just wants to complain in general, which is why I said if it's the case that he really wants to do it, he should set up his own.

It is true there's loads of positive discrimination or whatever you call it towards women these days, you know like women only car insurance companies and women only swim sessions etc etc and to be honest, I don't personally agree with that, regardless of the reasons given for why that's the case, but I just think in this case, it shouldn't really matter.

[Gealle]

Well, Foxy, the second part of your pseudonym certainly seems appropriate.

Consider, rationalise, and explain what would happen should the roles be reversed for men in respect of the following:

1. Earlier state retirement date.
2. 26 weeks maternity rights.
3. Right to single-sex colleges and dormitories at universities.
4. Gender-discriminatory insurance companies.
5. Free entry to nightclubs and cheap drinks.

Something tells me that quite suddenly the feminists would be jumping on a bandwagon, as ever they do.

In this instance, it matters as much as anywhere. I am aware that women are prone to ignore this fact in respect of issues they can't justify, but it's something called principle.

[hr]

Funky flunky munky...

[Foxy Moron]

Ok, fair enough, but I wasn't talking about any of these things. I don't feel like I really have enough experience of any of these things to really pass comment on them. My arguement would still apply if it were a male-only fun run. So I don't see how this is being a feminist and jumping on a bandwagon

[harmless loony]

Do your research...there is a male only fun run also run by Cancer Research. Details can be found here:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/runformoore/

So you can get off your high horse and do something useful - register and run...

[BeccaLydia]

I'm really surprised that Race for Life is now women only - when I did it many years ago (maybe 8?) it was open to everyone who could get sponsorship and the event was just to raise money, and awareness, for cancer in general. I guess times have changed.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100244

[David Bean]

To get back to the original subject, I would like to say that this cause is self evidently sexist, and nobody could reasonably claim otherwise - and indeed unless Fozzy Bear were making a (dare I say rather poor) attempt at irony, his/her post deserves to be thoroughly lambasted.

I'm not exactly certain of the context of this thread, because if this 'Race for Life' is just a general thing then I'd be happy for people the people who believe in the cause to go ahead and do it in spite of my personal distaste for the way they're phrasing what they believe in, but if we're talking about something that the Students' Association (or any other body of which I am a member) would be party to, I should have very grave misgivings with it indeed, and should like to oppose that organistions's support for it quite strenuously.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Martika's Kitchen]

Quoting David Bean from 03:07, 27th Oct 2007
...but if we're talking about something that the Students' Association (or any other body of which I am a member) would be party to...

We're not. It's not always about the union you know. Or co-operatives.

[Haunted]

As has already been said, why should women and men be treated the same?
They are different after all.

I doubt anyone would kick up much of a fuss about having a men only charity run for testicular cancer.

Women get into clubs free because men will pay good money to be in such clubs (I doubt the reverse would be as true). Guys, your going to buy them drinks anyway, is that sexist? Well, now that I think about it, since you are descriminating on the basis of sex, then yeah. Stop being attracted only to a certain sex you sexists. I would like to see legislation brought in to curb the rampant sexism that goes on in the hetero and homosexual communities. Quotas, would that work? While were at it, lets bring in the racist legislation and put an end to such blatant racism such as the notorious "asian bug".

Right, thats enough of that. Anyway
Women =/= Men
Therefore treating women =/= treating men
QED

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn