3 ms·

I know it is a small thing but hopefully they change this going forward. Having a 'special' female winner while assuming a male will be the 'real' winner is im

I know it is a small thing but hopefully they change this going forward. Having a 'special' female winner while assuming a male will be the 'real' winner is implicit/transparent sexism to me.

kryogen1c 7y ago
It's sexism by definition because it's making a choice based on gender, but that doesn't make it wrong. Men are more physically performant than women, so if there weren't two leagues then in the overall majority of sports women would just lose.
eknkc 7y ago
Well, they said no woman ever won this race so I guess it's a fair assumption that the first place will be a male. They probably added the female winner trophy to be more inclusive towards women even. The situation is kind of stupid but does not seem malicious to me, just happened to be like this.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Of course not malicious, but not a little bit presumptuous. As you can see from other commenters here it's apparently not unexpected that a woman might win. The organizers if any, should have had a hunch this might happen, even if it didn't happen before. Well, there were good laughs to be had anyway!
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
dTal 7y ago
Doesn't seem sexist to me, given that the reason this is a headline is because it has never happened before. Historically, the assumption that a man will win is completely grounded. I also note that the two awards are physically identical except for the text. What system would be better, here? A single award? That's just the same system as now, minus the female award - now women almost never take home a prize. Separate but equal "mens" and "womens" awards, labeled as such? Now you aren't recognizing the "overall" winner at all. Perhaps three awards - mens, womens, and outright? Might be a good idea for cases like this where the best man gets nothing, but for the majority of cases all you've done is hand another award to the man. Remember, this is a headline because it's an edge case. Edge cases are a poor guide for good policy.
- chrisoverzero 7y ago
  > […] it has never happened before. FTA: > “Obviously there’s a lot of great women runners, but you don’t see them winning ultras outright a lot. When it happens, they get two awards.” Sounds as though it’s infrequent, but not unprecedented. > Edge cases are a poor guide for good policy. Consider this situation to have been a bug in a production environment. Would you advise your junior developers not to patch it, or write unit tests for it? Edge cases are where the rubber meets the road.
wtdata 7y ago
I find it interesting that for some people, even when woman get favoured and men get the short end of the stick, they still find a way to paint the situation as sexism againt woman.

I know it is a small thing but hopefully they change this going forward. Having a 'special' female winner while assuming a male will be the 'real' winner is implicit/transparent sexism to me.

kryogen1c 7y ago

It's sexism by definition because it's making a choice based on gender, but that doesn't make it wrong. Men are more physically performant than women, so if there weren't two leagues then in the overall majority of sports women would just lose.

eknkc 7y ago

Well, they said no woman ever won this race so I guess it's a fair assumption that the first place will be a male. They probably added the female winner trophy to be more inclusive towards women even. The situation is kind of stupid but does not seem malicious to me, just happened to be like this.

jacobush 7y ago
Of course not malicious, but not a little bit presumptuous. As you can see from other commenters here it's apparently not unexpected that a woman might win. The organizers if any, should have had a hunch this might happen, even if it didn't happen before. Well, there were good laughs to be had anyway!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

dTal 7y ago

Doesn't seem sexist to me, given that the reason this is a headline is because it has never happened before. Historically, the assumption that a man will win is completely grounded. I also note that the two awards are physically identical except for the text. What system would be better, here? A single award? That's just the same system as now, minus the female award - now women almost never take home a prize. Separate but equal "mens" and "womens" awards, labeled as such? Now you aren't recognizing the "overall" winner at all. Perhaps three awards - mens, womens, and outright? Might be a good idea for cases like this where the best man gets nothing, but for the majority of cases all you've done is hand another award to the man. Remember, this is a headline because it's an edge case. Edge cases are a poor guide for good policy.

chrisoverzero 7y ago
> […] it has never happened before. FTA: > “Obviously there’s a lot of great women runners, but you don’t see them winning ultras outright a lot. When it happens, they get two awards.” Sounds as though it’s infrequent, but not unprecedented. > Edge cases are a poor guide for good policy. Consider this situation to have been a bug in a production environment. Would you advise your junior developers not to patch it, or write unit tests for it? Edge cases are where the rubber meets the road.

wtdata 7y ago

I find it interesting that for some people, even when woman get favoured and men get the short end of the stick, they still find a way to paint the situation as sexism againt woman.