Cugel wrote:pete75 wrote:Cugel wrote:There's nothing to stop the prize-givers or the gong-awarders doing a virtual separation within a single race to give 1st woman, 1st man, 1st under 18, 1st over 50, etcetera. In fact this happens in hundreds of amateur races of all kinds.
All that means is women are competing against women for the woman's prize. There are few, if any , people over 50 or under 18 competing in top level professional sport.
If a sporting event is designed for all to compete on equal terms then for that to happen it would be necessary to have one set of prizes - the winner and down to whatever place the organisers want to award money be that third or tenth.
No, the women are also now competing against the men in the race they are in. Perhaps one will win the overall race, even among "the professionals".
Why not try it and find out?
What is the advantage to the men gained by banning women in their race? I can think of only one: the loss of ego should a woman win. Of course, this is only an advantage to misogynists; the weak of ego; the strange blokes who are afrit of ladies.
No. I don't think the top women would want it. Their earning would whither away.
Some years ago when the men's and women's payments for winning Wimbledon were vastly different and there were complaints it was unfair to women the authorities suggested lumping the prize money together and just having one competition. The women were all against this idea as they knew they'd not earn any prize money.
Remarks about people being frightened doesn't help your argument.