3 ms·
> Would you mind explaining why? Not at all. Simple. Always (until now at least) a prejudice against women when positions have limited numbers to fill. And of
by doe88 7y ago
> Would you mind explaining why?
Not at all. Simple. Always (until now at least) a prejudice against women when positions have limited numbers to fill. And of course, the whole area of sport is biaised against women, for instance, for her sport there is still no real tour de france for women in cyclism, in 2019.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago[I'm not at all denying your hypothesis. Just wishing to probe the issue further.] When women are choosing their coaches do they exhibit the same sort of choices, that you called prejudice? Maybe in general men are better at coaching? Are you assuming it is prejudice, or is that demonstrable? I wonder if sportsmen perceive that more successful sportsmen make better coaches, so female sportsmen think that males are better because of the monetary bias? The bias in sport seems to be primarily biological. Your second clause doesn't answer why it's harder for women already at the pinnacle of their sport to move in to "retirement" posts (coach, admin, advocacy): besides prejudice do you have any other hypotheses. I imagine the travel involved is similar to being an itinerant salesman; if there are self-selective pressures that differ by the sexes then I could see similar proportions to that field.
- doe88 7y agoAgain a simple example. Track cycling always been more difficult for athletes to make a living from, even for men. A lot of them either are integrated in traditional pro-teams or shift to road pro-cycling after their accomplishments on track. For instance Bradley Wiggins started on track then later won TdF. So part of my point was saying when there is less opportunity to make something like that (there is no true TdF for women, therefore less money, therefore less opportunities to shift from track) then to me there is an obvious difference between opportunities offered to women than men in track cycling.