An organiser of a West Yorkshire hill climb has been accused of saying that women “don’t contribute to the sport” during a discussion about prize money at the event, when a competitor took issue with the cash sum for the overall top three being greater than the prize for the first three female finishers. Richard Haigh says he was “misquoted”, and that the prize list was published prior to the event so anyone who was unhappy “didn’t then need to enter”.
Last weekend the organiser of Holme Moss Hill Climb replied “because they don’t contribute anything to the sport” when asked why the women’s prizes weren’t equal to the men’s!
If you have second please sign the following petition to stop this happeninghttps://t.co/UrY4H6cXXH
— Mel Sykes (@nuddypants) October 12, 2020
At the weekend, Nikola Matthews said she emailed Holme Valley Wheelers – the organisers of the Holme Moss Hill Climb – about the prize pot before the event, which took place on Saturday 11th October. Originally the prize pot deemed that the ‘first fastest’ competitor would win £45, the second fastest would win £35, and the third fastest would win £28; while the first female would get £40, the second fastest £30, and the third fastest £20.
Ms Matthews added on Instagram: “Pye Nest Day Nursery offered to donate the difference in prize money (for the Holme Moss Hill Climb event) to make it equal. I’m really thankful they did this. However the organiser refused to accept it saying that he did not feel it was appropriate and women didn’t deserve equal prize money because they don’t contribute to the sport. He then tried to justify it with some bollox about women not making tea at TTs anymore.”
She also told road.cc: “It’s not about the money. It’s about the allocation of the money and what it stands for.”
Done ?
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) October 12, 2020
Since the allegation was made and shared on social media, a petition to make equal prize money mandatory at all Cycling Time Trial events has been widely shared again, and signed by Chris Boardman amongst others.
Haigh, the Holme Moss Hill Climb organiser who was accused of making the controversial comments, sent an email to all competitors today defending himself and the event against the allegations. He said:
“The regrettable part of the event occurred when all of the hard work was finished and I should have been in a position to go home and relax. I became aware that a post had been made on social media (something that I don’t take part in) from a female competitor, unhappy with the prize money, as in her opinion it was not equal for men and women.
“When deciding on the prize list, I had spoken to someone at CTT to see if they had guidance on this point and was given to understand that they did not and this was a matter for the organiser.
“Prior to the event I had published a prize list (good practice) on the CTT website, as I am aware that opinions differ when it comes to allocating prize money, whether this should be in proportion to the numbers in the category entering the event or equal across gender. I felt this was the best way to be fair and transparent, and anyone unhappy with the prize list didn’t then need to enter, if they felt strongly about it.
“A competitor then emailed me regarding the matter to which I replied, explaining my rationale behind the prize list.
“I was also the start timekeeper for the event and as I prepared to carry out this vital role, I was again approached by a competitor, to discuss the issue and I believe this conversation has been misquoted on social media.
“As anyone who has ever assisted in organising activities and events in amateur sport will know, this is all done on a voluntary basis, at a personal cost out of love of the sport and wishing to put something back in.
“Volunteering in grass roots sport had long caused concern as most of it is done by older people in the sport and therefore is not sustainable, something that has been highlighted by Covid and is seen in the many cancelled events on both CTT and BC platforms and something that needs to change of the sport is to continue.
“It would be nice to think that people’s efforts and energies could be chanelled in this direction rather than negativity on social media.”
After the unequal prize pot at Catford CC’s famous hill climb caused much controversy this time last year, the organisers eventually redistributed it. Originally £300 was offered for the overall winner and just £75 for first female, which was then changed to £100 each for the first male and female winners respectively.
87 thoughts on “Sexism row: organiser of Holme Moss Hill Climb accused of saying women “don’t contribute to the sport” in defence of unequal prize pot”
“anyone unhappy with the
“anyone unhappy with the prize list didn’t then need to enter, if they felt strongly about it.”
What an absolute turd of a comment, so women shouldn’t do anything they feel is unequal? I hope everyone signs the petition. Richard Haugh can go do us all a favour and FO
Well he might do exactly that
Well he might do exactly that and then the sport will be down one organiser. But you’ll be happy and that’s the main thing.
Miller wrote:
Better one less organiser than one more woman put off a sport they are interested in by dinosaur behaviour. Offering to organise shouldn’t be carte blanche to persist discrimination, even if its unconscious or implicit.
Obviously the right answer is to simply provide the same prize pot. However I can kind of empathise with the organiser’s feelings on this.
I remember a female team mate of mine a few years ago, turned up to a town centre crit offering something like a £1,000 first prize for both the men’s and women’s event. The men’s cycling scene responded to the call of cash and the organiser had a full and high quality field. The Women’s scene not so much. Something like three women entered, my team mate was the only serious racer there, and after ten minutes she was riding around on her own. Great cash grab for her, but for the spectators, the organiser and the sponsors it was less enthralling.
I’m also mindful of the work our regional work group has previously undertaken to support women’s racing. Listening to comments from our women’s scene, a number of initiatives have been tried, but none have ultimately been supported by women racers. A huge amount of time, effort and money has seemingly been wasted.
I mention this as its easy to see the big picture and make the right choices when you are on the sidelines, however amongst those facilitating the sport, I can appreciate how these embittered views are founded.
It’s a chicken and egg situation. Fundamentally, a lot of these problems are due to women’s cycle sport predominently being organised by men, and all the failings / bad feelings associated with that. We need more women involved in providing the sport women want, but to do that, we need more women in the sport generally.
Would that be a race that was
Would that be a race that was just outside of Doncaster? I remember a similar situation there, but the prize money was put up by sponsors.
There is a simple equation to apply to all races run by CTT, equal entry fee, equal race distance, equal prize money. CTT races are Hill climbs and TT’s, men and women race on an equal stage over distance and have to pay the same entry fee. So there is no reason that prize money should not be equal.
His archaic views have no place in the sport, I would be happy for him to be gone, as would many others. I personally know at least 6 women who organise races under CTT and British Cycling, but are often undermined or spoken over by males in their clubs/teams. There are plenty of people who would organise things, if the views of the governing bodies and the “old boys clubs” who try and run the sport weren’t so outdated.
Equality and equity are not
Equality and equity are not the same.
If there are equal numbers of participants and the entry fee is the same then the prize money should be equal.
If those conditions aren’t met then the prize money shouldn’t be equal.
If only one woman enters should she receive the same prize money as the a man who came first out of 500 entrants?
Yes – not hard is it?
Yes – not hard is it?
She should receive the same
She should receive the same prize money?
If so, where does that prize money come from?
The same place the mens’
The same place the mens’ prize money comes from. How is this difficult to understand?
So the men’s competition will
So the men’s competition will subsidise the women’s competition.
That’s not equitable.
It also endangers the very existence of women’s hill climbs as adding a women’s category will likely cost more money than it raises.
And if more women than men
And if more women than men enter, should men receive a smaller prize pot? If you want to increase the number of women entering, then a good starting point is to not treat them as second class citizens.
Yep.
Yep.
That’s equality.
I love the idea that treating people exactly the same can somehow be spun to treating people as second class citizens.
There’s no spin here, just an
There’s no spin here, just an acknowledgement that if these issues are to be solved then it’s really not helpful to rabbit on that people being treated mathematically equally is the same as being treated fairly. This merely perpetuates discrimination and, in my opinion, is not something to be smug about.
If you don’t understand this in relation to female participation in sport in 2020 then I dread to think what your opinions are about support for other groups on the receiving end of active discrimination.
I would echo BigChin’s comments below – they are very well put.
The problem with your
The problem with your argument is that it assumes an infinite pot of money.
These events usually exist on a shoe string budget, adding a women’s event whose costs are not covered by the associated income makes the event less viable.
No, it really doesn’t, and no
No, it really doesn’t, and no, it really doesn’t.
Why do you see the events as separate? Your perspective is exactly why the problem persists.
It’s a shame you don’t get it – thankfully these issues are getting more coverage these days and arguments like yours are being exposed as totally missing the point.
It is normal and fair to
It is normal and fair to distribute a proportion of entry fees in each category as prize money, to do otherwise is discriminatory. If it comes from other sources then yes distribute evenly.
Especially if the
Especially if the organisation fronting the prize money is happy to do so!
This kind of thinking is
This kind of thinking is precisely why we don’t have equality yet. In a sport which doesn’t have equal numbers across genders you’re advocating that the prize pot should be proportionate to the number of competitors you compete against in your category. Do you not see how that approach would stop women from wanting to enter the sport, hindering the gender difference?
You seem to have missed the obvious point that the prize list was communicated prior to all the rider applications being processed, it says it right there in the article ‘anyone unhappy with the prize list didn’t then need to enter’.
God knows if this is worth replying to as I imagine you’re the sort of person who would then argue something along the lines of ‘the winner of the womens tdf shouldn’t earn as much as the mens as the distance covered isn’t the same’.
I pray you’re not in a position to impact on any females life, whether that be in relationships or managerial terms.
BigChin wrote:
THIS, This is the ONLY thing that people need to take away from his BS email today. The prize list was put out BEFORE riders entered. So the prize list was decided upon without even knowing how many would enter from either gender. So the organiser has openly stated that the prize list would be unequal before even taking entries, so he took the stance to be sexist and there is NO excuse for it.
Alternatively, the prize fund
Alternatively, the prize fund was calculated based on historical entrance ratios to ensure that the race could cover its costs.
As long as the same calculation is used for the men’s and women’s race it’s not sexism.
It’s the opposite of sexism.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’ll quite happily agree that the prize fund could have been calculated on historical evidence. That’s fine, but you can argue all you want. Having unequal prize funds for the same entry fee and race distance, requiring the same effort is sexist.
The race wants to cover its cost, I fully accept that aswell. So instead of the prizes they offered. It could have been made equal like this
1st £40 (male and female)
2nd £30 (male and female)
3rd £20 (male and female)
The race would have then kept £18 more in prize money to help cover costs. Also, turning down an external source that offered to help make the prize money equal, along with the organisers’ comments. It’s clear it was sexism and nothing else. There is no point in arguing the point, because under your system. You only have 1547 posts and I have 9219, so my opinion is 5.95 times more valid than yours….
Because if you treat it as
Because if you treat it as one event then the question arises as to what you are using as your discriminator.
For example, why should the top female receive a prize but not the top disabled cyclist?
What is your reasoning behind the decision to only discriminate in favour of women?
Rich_cb wrote:
If there was a paracyclist race, then there should be an equal prize for that aswell, but seen as there wasn’t and there were two equal races, male and female. There should have been equal prize money.
Next, you’ll be wanting to hand out prizes based on race ratios? No? Well, it should not be done to sex either.
Do us all a favour and take your suggestions, opinions and shite back to 1960 and stay there. Thanks
Do us all a favour and answer
Do us all a favour and answer the question.
What are you using as your discriminator?
What is the reason for women having a separate race?
Arguing for equality of opportunity would have been pretty progressive in the 1960s.
Assuming you are a “man”, I
Assuming you are a “man”, I can bet that Lizzie, Victoria or Laura could thrash your pants, but in general it takes a lot for an average woman to equal an average man’s performance. If you don’t already understand the physical and etc differences in sports athletes and humble humans, then hey-ho.
Here’s an argument for you.
Here’s an argument for you.
If everybody is paying the same fee and cycling the same distance then why should only women have a separate and equal prize fund.
What about disabled cyclists? They pay the same entry fee and cycle the same distance. Should they also receive the same prize money? What about masters cyclists? Junior cyclists? BAME cyclists?
What specifically is it about women cyclists that requires them to have a separate and equal prize fund whilst other groups are not afforded this privilege?
I imagine you’re the sort of
I imagine you’re the sort of person who likes drowning puppies.
I pray you’re not in a position with access to vulnerable children.
See, I can make infantile ad hominem attacks too. Let’s not carry that nonsense on.
As for your actual point, if you want more women to participate you need a viable thriving racing calendar.
Adding extra costs to each race that chooses to have a women’s category makes that viability more difficult to achieve and therefore hinders increased participation.
And here we have a bunch of
And here we have a bunch of men agreeing with each other that men should get more money than women.
/golfclap
Nope.
Nope.
We have people arguing for equality of opportunity.
…and unfortunately your
…and unfortunately your argument concludes with the outcome that women should get a smaller prize pot than men. You might want to consider the contradiction in that.
It does not.
It does not.
It concludes with the winner of each race recieving a fixed proportion of the money left over after the costs of organising their specific race.
If more women than men entered then the women would receive a higher prize fund than the men.
Your argument is predicated
Your argument is predicated on the idea that the women’s race and the men’s race are ‘separate’, even though they are both part of the same event, on the same day, on the same course, etc. etc.
And therein lies the problem. Thankfully most people can see it.
If there are separate prizes
If there are separate prizes and it is impossible for a contestant eligible for prize A to win Prize B then that looks a lot like separate races to me.
Your argument rests on arbitrarily separating the contestants by gender.
Can you explain the reasoning behind this?
It seems awfully discriminatory.
I give up. All lives matter,
I give up. All lives matter, yeah?
I love a good ad hominem.
I love a good ad hominem.
Just answer the question.
If women and men are competing in the same race the why should they receive separate prizes?
What is the reason for treating female cyclists differently to all other entrants?
You are one of these trolls
You are one of these trolls (I think there are three or four on this site). Ha ha. The fact that you are a woman makes your comments a bit peculiar, but hey!
That would be Rich_bc.
That would be Rich_bc.
Rich_cb isn’t a troll though.
It was not ad hominem, it’s
It was not ad hominem, it’s just that your argument is logically equivalent.
A thought experiment for you…
You’re organising an event for cyclists, a hill climb, say. It’s open to both men and women, because you’re a stickler for equality of opportunity. You want to raise a bit of money for charity, support the local club, and maybe even bring a community together for a fun day out cheering the contestants. The only thing is you’re not allowed to know who’s entered, and on the day all the riders are in anonymous fancy dress.
The whole thing goes great. You collect a load of entry fees, more than enough to make a generous donation to charity, cover the costs of the stewards etc. and you have some funds left over for prizes. The only problem is, you have to declare how these are allocated before the contestants reveal who they are; all you have is a list of numbers and times, and a prize fund. What do you do, making sure you stick to your principles of equal opportunities for men and women?
Show your working, and hopefully you’ll answer your own questions.
If it’s impossible to
If it’s impossible to identify who are the men and the women you can’t distribute prizes to men and women under your system or mine.
In the situation you described the only fair system is to just give prizes to the fastest costumed cyclists.
To clarify that is not the system I am proposing for a real life scenario.
I have answered your question.
Now please answer my questions.
If women and men are competing in the same race the why should they receive separate prizes?
What is the reason for treating female cyclists differently to all other entrants?
Sorry, what exactly is my
Sorry, what exactly is my ‘system’?
So at the end of the day you step up to the mic and announce to the crowd that there is just no way to allocate the prize funds in a way that ensures equality of opportunity for men and women, so you’re just going to give prizes to the top three finishers?
Fail. If you don’t understand this I suggest you read through the comments again.
To state the obvious, there is indeed an entirely fair way to distribute the funds ensuring equality of opportunity for men and women, and that is to make the prize pot for men equal to that for women. This isn’t a ‘system’, it’s the only method of allocation which ensures equality of opportunity; men and women are treated equally. They receive the same prizes for competing in the same event.
For completeness, to your questions:
“If women and men are competing in the same race the why should they receive separate prizes?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “separate”, but how you describe them makes no difference; the prizes for the same event should be the same value for men and women. This really isn’t rocket science.
“What is the reason for treating female cyclists differently to all other entrants?”
Sorry, just point out to me where I’ve done this.
Ride safe.
I’m intrigued now.
I’m intrigued now.
How do you propose allocating prizes fairly in your hypothetical masked event?
I honestly can’t think of a fairer way than basing it purely on speed?
You state that you aren’t treating women cyclists differently but that is exactly what you are proposing.
Any field of entrants will contain a range of ages, abilities, genders etc.
You could choose to divide the field along any of those lines and present prizes accordingly.
For example: Under/Over 50 years old
The argument for dividing by age is exactly the same as for dividing by gender so why are you only proposing dividing the field by gender?
If it is sexist to not have equal prizes for genders then surely it is ageist to not have separate age group categories with equal prize funds for all?
This is exactly the can of worms you open with your system of equal prize money regardless of participant number.
Being the fastest rider out of 500 others is not the same achievement as being the fastest rider in a field of one.
Rich_cb wrote:
How do you propose allocating prizes fairly in your hypothetical masked event?
[/quote]
FOR PRIZES TO BE ALLOCATED IN A WAY THAT REPRESENTS EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR MEN AND WOMEN THE PRIZE POTS HAVE TO BE THE SAME SIZE FOR MEN AND WOMEN. I definitely mentioned this.
It’s fair by the definition of the word, but it doesn’t that achieve equality of opportunity for men and women, does it?
Sorry, where am I treating women differently? I am proposing an open entry which doesn’t discriminate or treat women cyclists differently, therefore affording men and women equality of opportunity. And I am proposing prize pots of the same size, therefore affording men and women equality of opportunity. How is this “treating women cyclists differently”?
Yes it will, so yes you could. You are right – the argument for dividng by age is logically equivalent to division by sex or indeed any other criteria.
Again, you keep saying this but failing to point out where I am discriminating between men and women. Where exactly am I “dividing the field by gender”?
Arguably yes it is, I agree. But that’s not what the article is about, and not what we’re talking about here, which is equality of opportunity for men and women; I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated.
I don’t claim to have a ‘system’, and for what it’s worth I think it’s probably impossible to come up with a ‘system’ to be applied to every event in the same way, that results in equality of opportunity for all, given the infinite number of ways it is possible to discriminate between participants. That’s why there are perennial debates and legal cases at the highest level of sport about the subtleties of fair competition and equal opportunities for all athletes. It is a can of worms, but to claim it is opened by affording men and women equality of opportunity is whataboutery of the highest order, and serves only to perpetuate the problematic and offensive attitudes so spectacularly demonstrated by Mr Haigh.
Look, it’s really easy to skate over the issue staring everyone in the face and extend any argument to absurdity, but that works both ways (good luck organising a middle-aged white male hill climb whilst claiming to stand up for equality of opportunity) and your whataboutery is the same tactic employed by the knuckle draggers who argue for an International Men’s Day and White History Month, or say that All Lives Matter.
…And you are back to the ‘separate’ events argument again. If you’re discriminating between entrants and defining separate events then by all means have different prizes, but if in reality they are one event and you are justifying discrimination by pretending they are separate, then you sit with Mr. Haigh.
I don’t think you understand
I don’t think you understand Equality of Opportunity.
What you have proposed is to divide the field arbitrarily by gender and then split the prize fund equally between these new divisions.
If the divisions are not equally sized then entrants in one division have a higher chance of recieving a prize than entrants in the other.
That is not equality of opportunity as it can easily lead to a situation in which success is guaranteed for one group and very difficult to achieve for the other.
If a man cannot enter the women’s race then it is, by definition, a separate event.
Rich_cb wrote:
I don’t think you have understood anything I have patiently explained to you, but there we go. I’ve tried my best. One last go – pick one:
A – Multiple events are organised, separately and independently, all competitors in each event are considered equal despite differences in gender/sex/age/disability/etc. and you have prizes awarded simply for performance against a pre-defined criteria.
B – Two or more events for different groups of participants are advertised but in reality they are the same event on the same day on the same course etc. etc. but the organisers pretend they are separate and somehow justify different value prize pots to the different groups.
C – There is one event. It is open to all. You define your categories of participants and allocate equal prizes to each.
Let’s consider what happens in each scenario:
A – At every event young, strong, fit white men win all of the prizes but you think that’s OK because you treated the women/old/disabled/etc. all the same.
B – You claim your event offers equality of opportunity but actually you discriminate against groups of participants by not offering equal prize pots. You prove yourself to be sexist/ageist/ableist/whatever, and your logic is the same as Mr Haigh’s.
C – The event is not discriminatory against any particular group, within which each entrant has equal opportunity to enter, participate, enjoy, win, etc.
Here’s a hint for you – only one of these offers equality of opportunity.
You have clarified that you
You have clarified that you don’t understand equality of opportunity. Just Google it and have a read of the first few pages that come up.
I’ve carefully explained that in scenario C it is entirely possible that some groups will be guaranteed success due to a low number of participants.
That, alone, ensures that it does not represent equality of opportunity.
Scenario B is not discriminatory as each event uses the exact same formula to determine prize money.
The largest prize is not awarded based on any characteristic of the participants but purely on the number of participants.
This is exactly how most races work, if you turn up to a very large race meet you can expect the prize fund to be more generous than at a very small meet.
Scenario A is also not discriminatory as the same criteria of success is applied to every entrant regardless of their characteristics.
The only scenario that discriminates based on characteristics is C.
It is therefore the only scenario not to offer equality of opportunity.
Bizarrely you seem unable to grasp this.
Rich_cb wrote:
I disagree, but thanks for that. I suspect I’d find loads of articles about how it’s worked out for people like you and Mr Haigh arguing that the same event or even separate but equivalent events for men and women are allocated different prize pots.
And I acknowledge of course that this is possible, but it happens to be the only approach which encourages participation by minority groups. Still if you don’t like it because it’s not a rigorous mathematical system, then are you choosing option A with totally separate events for the different groups? Or option B where you advertise one event but then treat it like separate ones for men/women/whatever? It seems you don’t mind either option, viz…
You suddenly start referring to ‘each event’, ignoring the fact that the they are advertised and presented to entrants as a single event. You are discriminating against women who have entered by reducing their prize pot, just like Mr Haigh.
This is the logical problem in your argument. You claim both parts of this statement are true, but they are not mutually exclusive. If you do one you have to admit you are doing the other.
Thanks, I know, but this is a straw man; you’ve flipped back to talking about individual events.
So either you deny the obvious differences between the variousg groups, and men win all the prizes in every event. You’ve already said you wouldn’t suggest this in a real life scenario; it’s simply not fair and you know it. So instead you treat men, women, the disabled, the old etc. etc. all exactly the same. You give each group their own separate events and men/women, old/young or able/disabled aren’t allowed to enter the same one. You end up with ‘men only’/’women only’ events etc. Nobody could complain about the prize pots but you discriminate against entrants every time by defining who is eligble to enter.
You argue that it discriminates because there hasn’t been a mathematical formula, or a ‘system’ applied to both men and women equally. I have addressed the problems with this logic too many times now. In reality it is the only scenario where opportunities for both entry and prize winning are equal for both men and women at the same event; it is blind to the sex of the entrants and the prize winners. You can call it whatever you like, and you can argue until you’re blue in the face but this is the only choice you can make in 2020 for a single event open to all without looking like a dinosaur. QED.
I’m going to tap out here, but something for you to chew on in your spare time – how about an event with a ‘system’ where men’s entry fees contirbuted only to the women’s prize pot and vice versa?
PS Trying to be patronising doesn’t really work when you are arguing that Mr Haigh is right. Have a good one.
You’ve gone on and one about
You’ve gone on and one about equality of opportunity when you clearly don’t know what it means.
You insist that the races are not separate but accept that the participants and results are separated.
The outcome is obviously exactly the same as if the races were entirely separate.
For the final time, opportunities for prize winning are not automatically equal in gender segregated races.
If one woman enters her chances of victory, assuming she finishes, is 100%.
There is no good argument for dividing the participants by gender that doesn’t also require you to divide the participants in myriad other ways.
As, according to your argument, each of these myriad categories would be required to have the exact same prizes regardless of participant number, you’d be left with a situation where the prize was so small and so widely distributed it would be pointless.
You would have achieved equality of outcome though.
Rich_cb wrote:
I disagree – I do know what it means and I have illustrated it with explanations, examples and logical rationale. It seems however that you think “equality of opportunity” is the same as “equality of treatment” or the confused “equality of outcome”. This is equivalent to Mr Haigh’s position, and is frankly embarrassing in 2020, as many people have pointed out.
Again you ignore that it was was advertised as a single event. This is why it is sexist to have different prize pots for men and women.
If the races are genuinely segregated, by gender or otherwise, yes you are correct. I have already agreed with you on this point. If they are advertised as a single event however…see above.
Calm down, I have agreed with you that the logic is equivalent for all groups, and acknowledged that the associated issues are being wrestled with, sometimes in court, at the highest levels of sport. However, we are talking about addressing sexism, so there is no ‘requirement’ in this case to consider any further split beyond that between men and women. Again, I’m not disputing your logic here, but to run this argument to absurdity undermines your credibilty, and might lead people to believe that you, like Mr Haigh, are using logic to excuse what are fundamentally sexist attitudes.
My entire point has been that
If only one person in the entire race is eligible to win a specific prize then nobody can reasonably state that the participants are all taking part in the same competition.
My entire point has been that prize pots should relate to the number of participants in the race.
Therefore the women’s prize pot should be determined by the number of people who are eligible to win it.
That remains true regardless of whether you believe it’s one race or not.
The examples you have attempted to provide do not represent equality of opportunity.
An example of equality of opportunity would be myself and Pogacar lining up on identical bikes for a race up a mountain.
Clearly there’s only going to be one winner but our opportunity would be equal.
Reducing another argument to absurdity is a pretty standard debating technique.
If your position can be proved absurd, which it can, then it stands to reason that it is flawed.
My argument is that men and women, and all other groups, should be treated identically and applies to this event and any others.
I’ve absolutely no problem if that identical treatment results in women getting a higher prize fund than men or vice versa.
Rich_cb wrote:
I don’t think anyone would argue with that.
Given your first statement, for consistency I think you mean “competition” not “race” in the first sentence here, but I understand your premise. Unfortunately it’s a position which, if adopted at a single event, or across directly equivalent events, is sexist.
Sorry, it’s not a matter of belief. An ‘event’ is not the same as a ‘race’ or a ‘competition’. If you have a single ‘event’ which incorporates multiple equivalent ‘races’/’competitions’ and you have different size prize pots for the men’s ‘race’/’competition’ vs. the women’s ‘race’/’competition’ then you are sexist.
Your use of the word ‘opportunity’ is clearly concerned only with getting to the start line. Mine incorporates the possibility of winning a prize of equal value, regardless of whether the entrant is male or female, and is therefore not sexist.
You are correct, and every time you have tried it I have acknowledged your logic is valid. The problem is that we are talking about sexism and you have failed to explain why my position is either absurd or flawed. I haven’t had to rely on taking your logic to absurdity because it would result in events like the ‘young white male hill climb’.
If you don’t understand that the blanket application of a pre-defined treatment to all entrants at any individual event can be sexist, then you need to educate yourself.
You missed out ‘at the same event’ but whatever, it’s clearly implied. QED.
Thanks for summarising your views, I’ve honestly enjoyed the debate, and I suspect we’re both a bit fed up with it now(!) Take care. I’m off to sign the petition.
You cannot make up your own
You cannot make up your own definition for ‘Equality of Opportunity’.
It’s an established concept.
Please look it up and, to use your own phrase, ‘educate yourself’.
I believe your approach is sexist.
Under the equality of opportunity approach you get a set prize for every person you beat in whichever completion you enter.
That is true regardless of any characteristic particular to the entrants.
Under your approach you get a set prize regardless of how many people you beat.
Let’s consider applying the two approaches to different scenarios.
A sales department is comprised of a man and a woman who work on commission.
At the end of the year the manager calls the sales department together to tell them how’ve they’ve done.
The woman has sold far more than the man and under equality of opportunity would receive far more commission.
That seems fair to me.
Under equality of outcome, which, despite your confusion, is what you have described, the woman and man would have to receive the same amount of commission per year.
As the woman has sold more than the man the only way to achieve this is for the woman to receive a lower rate of commission per sale than the man in order that the final commission totals were equal.
That seems inherently sexist.
By fixing the race prize pots at equal levels you are ensuring that different levels of achievement receive the same reward.
By doing so on the basis of gender you are instigating a sexist system.
You might honestly believe that you are fighting against sexism but you are actually creating it.
Being the fastest person in a group of one is not the same achievement as being the fastest in a group of 500.
Rewarding it as if it is violates the fundamental principle of pay equality.
Equal work for equal reward.
Your approach is sexist.
Seriously, are you going to
Seriously, are you going to sign the petition or not?
I won’t be supporting the
I won’t be supporting the sexist policy that the petition is advocating.
Absolutely incredible darts.
Absolutely incredible darts.
Er, add it to the charity
Er, add it to the charity donation. If I’ve organised the event on the basis that all proceeds are going to charity, it would be dishonest to then start handing it out as prizes.
If I was planning it in advance, I’d probably get someone to judge the three best costumes and give them the prizes.
mdavidford wrote:
This is an A* answer – you achieve equality of opportunity for men and women (the prize pots for both are the same size – zero), and as a bonus you also achieve equality of opportunity for absolutely every entrant regardless of how anyone might argue that they should be categorised. The day is a roaring success, and everyone goes home happy.
Indeed – if you organise an event on the basis that all proceeds go to charity, then all proceeds should go to charity. I don’t think anyone is suggesting any different.
This is another good idea which would achive equality of opportunity for entrants. You seem to find this really easy, it’s a shame others don’t.
If only one woman enters out
If only one woman enters out of 500 men the event shouldn’t be taking place, because there’s something seriously wrong with it.
I look I forward to your
I look forward to your protests at the local netball league.
I think his name is Richard
I think his name is Richard Haigh, rather than ‘Haugh’, isn’t it? Might be worth amending.
Quote:
That’s an impressive amount of irrelevant deflection and waffle while avoiding actually addressing the issue…
Yes, irrelevant deflection
Yes, irrelevant deflection and waffle intended to direct attention away from the issue of unfairness and prejudice against women by a man who just doesn’t seem to get it, at all, even after it’s been patiently explained to him. Accusing people who question his half-witted sexism of ‘negativity’ is a lot like a criminal accusing the law of being ‘negative’ when said criminal is apprehended and accused. It’s actually his attitude to women which is ‘negative’, not his accusers.
As has been mentioned,
As has been mentioned, equality and equity are not the same. How about all the men’s entry fees go into their winner’s pot and all the women likewise? Seems proportionate to the chances of winning each event.
Imagine if there was an event that was mainly entered by women and men took more than their ‘fair’ share…..
Actually PROBLEM SOLVED. All men enter as women. We can all be whatever we now these days.
And we wonder why more women
And we wonder why more women don’t want to enter… /facepalm
transphobe.
transphobe.
Are you really this stupid?
Are you really this stupid? If you want to go through the experiences trans people have to go through to get their gender confirmed, good luck to you, but your attempt at a joke is pitiful.
Perhaps there should be no
Perhaps there should be no men/womens categories and just have prizes for the top three regardless of sex.
I.e. the top 3 men?
I.e. the top 3 men?
It can’t be a coincidence that every stupid comment that men deserve more money comes from men.
Did not say that men deserve
Did not say that men deserve more money. I said that top 3 riders, regardless of sex, deserve to win the money. Hugs & kisses.
Either you are an idiot or
Either you are an idiot or you are a troll. Which is it?
My training partner is a world-class triathlete, but my 15-year-old son is faster than her on a bike. It’s not complicated to understand that men will always be stronger and faster than women.
And thank goodness Covid keeps you away from hugging or kissing anyone.
So then he would win the
So then he would win the prize if he was competing against your partner on the bike. Full triathlon there is a good chance she would win the prize. Hugs and kisses Sweety Darling.
Do you realise that you come
Do you realise that you come over as an obnoxious, self important burke? Not saying you are an obnoxious, self important burke, just that you come over as one.
No. Did not realise that.
No. Did not realise that.
SpiderJ wrote:
My wife can run faster than me and beat me in an arm-wrestle…
How dare you buck the trend!
How dare you buck the trend! Bad bad boy.
Did not say that men deserve
Deleted
There’s a heck of a lot of
There’s a heck of a lot of people getting het up over a 1st prize of less than £50.
Anything outwith the pro circuit needs to just forget giving away anything with a £value.
Stick to trophies, engraved plaques etc and let the cash comparers do something else.
Donaldp wrote:
It’s obviously not about the £value, it’s about equality and fairness, and about fighting idiotic prejudice, regardless of the amount of money involved.
Plus a framed squirrel
Plus a framed squirrel picture.
End of discussion.
stomec wrote:
Excellent idea.
Not really. I think you’ve
Not really. I think you’ve missed the point.
Just FYI, it’s more the concept of discrimination against 50% of the human race that people get het up about but yeah, let’s not concern ourselves with that kind of thing and all do something else.
Originally the prize pot
Originally the prize pot deemed that the ‘first fastest’ competitor would win £45, the second fastest would win £35, and the third fastest would win £28; while the first female would get £40, the second fastest £30, and the third fastest £20.
Looking at the way the prize money was originally divided up, the women seem to be favoured because, if Lizzie or one of the dutch ladies had turned up they would of possibly won the ‘fastest competitor’ prize and the ‘fastest lady’ prize. Which isn’t exactly fair either. Whatever your views, it’s sensible to offer the same prize money. Especially as somebody offered to make up the difference. I wonder what would’ve happened if Pippa York had turned up?!!
My club and all the others in
My club and all the others in this area offer equal prizes to women & men. Simple, fair, and entirely uncontroversial.
Do you have any other
Do you have any other categories?
If you do, do those categories have the same prize funds as the male/female categories?
It’s 2020. I know it’s been a
It’s 2020. I know it’s been a bad year, but really, it is still the21st century, discriminatory prize lists are so 19th century. Get over it, do the right thing. About time equality was baked into the regs.
have I missed the bit where
have I missed the bit where Mr Haigh explains where he was misquoted ?
Is this like the tennis
Is this like the tennis argument again where the women’s races don’t have as much distance to cover?
For anyone not familiar – some female tennis players have been complaining they don’t earn as much as the male tennis players, even though men play 5 sets and women play 3. Equal pay for equal work.
Looks like I’ve turned up
Looks like I’ve turned up late to this party and when I say party I mean ‘internet argument’.
I can’t read through all three pages of around three people going back and fourth.. however a little ramble from me..
If we assume there are no ‘additional administrational costs’ for putting on a womens, mens, kids, vets, para, trans, tandem, ‘whatever’ category then I don’t really think there’s a good reason for prizes not to be equal. Surely that’s the reasonable conclusion to this. As I put elsewhere on this topic, people don’t enter for the prizes, I’m sure most people would be happy to cover the entry fee and the price of a coffee on the way home. I feel it’s down to the CTT to put this rule in place and no one else. They should change the rules to reflect this quickly IMO.
(If there are additional CTT costs per category, then that changes things entirely)
We also should not forget that whether we like it or not, we do rely on goodwill of the organisers to put these things on.. there is no right that the Holme Moss HC must happen and unless you have probably more than (say) three people express interest in a particular category to the organisers, then there’s really no point in putting it on. Also as Alf Garnet (Richard Haigh) pointed out these things are often run by ‘old people’ who do it for the love of the sport, so you take out one or two of these old sods from organising and suddenly you’ve lost your local TT season organisers, so some respect I feel should be reserved for the work they do.
Also while there is total justificaton for the point the lady made before the event, the ‘vague quote’ about women not making teas’ stinks of bullshit and for anyone to complain ‘mid race’ to a starter is also poor form. I do think the point could have been made without stirring up a twitter hate mob.