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

That would be Rich_bc.
Rich_cb isn't a troll though.

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 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 '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.

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:

I'm intrigued now.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

I honestly can't think of a fairer way than basing it purely on speed?

It's fair by the definition of the word, but it doesn't that achieve equality of opportunity for men and women, does it?

Rich_cb wrote:

You state that you aren't treating women cyclists differently but that is exactly what you are proposing.

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"?

Rich_cb wrote:

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...

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

...so why are you only proposing dividing the field by gender?

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"?

Rich_cb wrote:

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?

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

This is exactly the can of worms you open with your system of equal prize money regardless of participant number.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

Being the fastest rider out of 500 others is not the same achievement as being the fastest rider in a field of one.

...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 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 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.

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 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:

You have clarified that you don't understand opportunity of equality. Just Google it and have a read of the first few pages that come up.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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...

Rich_cb wrote:

Scenario B is not discriminatory as each event uses the exact same formula to determine prize money.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

The largest prize is not awarded based on any characteristic of the participants but purely on the number of participants.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

Thanks, I know, but this is a straw man; you've flipped back to talking about individual events.

Rich_cb wrote:

Scenario A is also not discriminatory as the same criteria of success is applied to every entrant regardless of their characteristics.

 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.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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 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:

You've gone on and one about equality of opportunity when you clearly don't know what it means.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

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%.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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.

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:

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.

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

That remains true regardless of whether you believe it's one race or not.

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.
 

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

 
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.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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'.

Rich_cb wrote:

My argument is that men and women, and all other groups, should be treated identically and applies to this event and any others.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

I've absolutely no problem if that identical treatment results in women getting a higher prize fund than men or vice versa.

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 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 sign the petition or not?

I won't be supporting the sexist policy that the petition is advocating.

Absolutely incredible darts.

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:

Er, add it to the charity donation.

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.

mdavidford wrote:

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.

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.

mdavidford wrote:

If I was planning it in advance, I'd probably get someone to judge the three best costumes and give them the prizes.

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 of 500 men the event shouldn't be taking place, because there's something seriously wrong with it.

I look forward to your protests at the local netball league.

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:

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.

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 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.

Miller wrote:

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.

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.