• Women's focused half marathon
• A course through Magic Kingdom® Park including Cinderella Castle and Epcot®
• Disney Princess themed Entertainment on-course and maybe a visit from Prince Charming and friends
• Event Weekend Transportation is included if you stay at one of the Event's Host Resorts

My wife goes down with a dozen or so ladies.  I would never encroach, because it is their ladies' getaway.  Not because the race excludes me, because it doesn't.

(I added the bold and italics to their words)

TriAya - 2010-09-30 5:55 AM I also think that U.S. society, on the whole, is a little too gender-focused ... and that in turn, it's a little too male/female, gay/straight, this/that. In my experience, life is not quite that neatly categorized.

In many developing countries, for much of the population, that's true.

Doesn't change my opinion that in U.S. society, it's still too gender focused. That focus on a gender dichotomy (and other dichotomies I mentioned), in my opinion, contributes to maintaining the schism (maybe even creating new ones).

In other words, I recommend paying attention to "human" and, in the workplace, for example, "qualified" rather than arbitrary categories.

This is a phenomenal read, not expensive, and I would recommend it to anyone.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree on anything ... or am I wrong?

And yet this is wrong, and things are being done to address this, both in law and awareness. So I'm going to disagree that the solution is "we have been screwed up till now, so now we are going to screw others".

I'm torn between a semantic debate and the debate at hand, but I will readily admit that I made a poor assumption and leave it at that. I do apologize for that again.

ETA: Damnit, I got into a semantic debate anyway. Sorry! :p

Did you ever question the reason that a "women's focused" (thanks for the clarification poster who's name I currently forget!) marathon was not a "women's only" marathon? It's probably because people such as yourself would sue the race organizers. The clear intent of the race was to focus on women, as was evidenced by the .27% male participation rate. The intent is even clearer when you realize that there are no gender divisions. I'll touch on your moral outrage to this horrible act further down.

Just because something isn't illegal, or to avoid the double negative, just because something is legal, does not make it morally or ethically justified. I might be on a slippery slope if I try to frame this as a moral or ethical debate, but I really don't know how else to frame it. It's not an issue of legality, since it does not meet the criteria of being clear.

No, discrimination is NOT discrimination. There is discrimination that is protected by law, there is discrimination that is protected by social mores and norms, and there is discrimination that only philosophy classes should focus on. Your argument is of the latter. Was anyone offended by this? Was anyone injured by this? Yes, perhaps the guy that won and to a lesser extent, the other 29 racers, but that was their own fault. I see your counter to this being that it was "legal" for them to enter, but was it wise? No. It was legal out of necessity to prevent lawsuits.

Would I come to the defense of a group of race organizers that catered to male-only races? Yes, of course I would, assuming that they allowed women to enter the race. Would I be arguing if a woman won the race? Hell no, I'd be encouraging her to whip some male . Why? Because women have, ON AVERAGE (oh god, please don't crucify me for this statement) slower times than men.

Which brings me to another point that perhaps I should clarify, if I have not yet: I've got no problem with the guy entering, I've got a problem with the guy winning. It's bad form on his part.

Talk about fallacies of logic...whoa. You made a point. I asked you to back that point up with evidence. I did not ask a you to prove whether or not this race actually occurred. That's a philosophical debate for people much smarter than us.

My rather poorly constructed argument is that more women will want to avoid working out in a situation where they will feel uncomfortable (e.g. ogled, judged, the perception of either of those things, regardless of the reality) than will men. Men do not have the same problems of discrimination with women as women do.

Furthering this point is a kind of out-there question as to how many women participated specifically in this race, or races that only include women in general, BECAUSE there were no men involved? If there is at least 1, then I am personally satisfied with the race existing as such. We live in a society where physical fitness has become a growing problem and if a woman will be motivated to do such because she feels safe or unintimidated by the lack of men in the field, that's freaking awesome.

I'm a bit more worried about the hubris of the men participating, personally.