Sexism row: organiser of Holme Moss Hill Climb accused of saying women "don't contribute to the sport" in defence of unequal prize pot

Yes - not hard is it?

She should receive the same prize money?

If so, where does that prize money come from?

The same place the mens' prize money comes from. How is this difficult to understand?

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 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.

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 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 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, 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 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 organisation fronting the prize money is happy to do so!

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:

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'. 

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 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:

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.

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 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:

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?

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 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 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.

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 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 men agreeing with each other that men should get more money than women.

/golfclap

Nope.

We have people arguing for equality of opportunity.

...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 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 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 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, yeah?

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 (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!