If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
As sad as it is I see your point, we will never really know the answer unless they release the demographic for something like sport relief, I guess they don't care about gender enough to note down whether it is a man or a woman doing the run.
The idealist answer is that it shouldn't drop any of the numbers at all because it doesn't matter about gender, people are running it to fight cancer, not for personal gains or goals, we have all lost someone to cancer or know someone who has lost someone to cancer.
In reality I would guess maybe 20% of women would not run it because of men being able to do it for the same reason that my local swimming pool has a ladies only session and why my gym had someone fighting for a ladies only time - which I protested against because they refused to have a men only time - so while I understand the point, it should not matter. It is a great pity that it does matter!
Awesome.
I did Race for Life and the fact that it was women only gave me confidence to do my first race. However, there are so many of them that I don't see why they can't do some men-only, some women-only, some mixed. When it was just one race, sure, make it women-only. But it's got massive and it needs to evolve.
It's a Glee reference; my friends keep calling me 'femme' or 'straight-acting' and I decided I prefered 'sneaky gay'.
Whilst I agree with your assessment that it's about sisterly solidarity, you can't really run a seperate male run as it will just end up being in competition with it and will attract the wrong sorts (angry MRA for example), and also attract heavy criticism from outspoken feminists who will characature the male runners as insecure and wanting to take back what the 'women have won' or something.
One of the nicer suggestions if it did need a change (note, I'm not saying it does as I don't think I'm really qualified to say) I've heard would be to change it to a family run. So you have dads, kids, mums all taking part together. It would put off the hyper competitives that people are worried would ruin it, whilst at the same time only attracting more people. The remaining women who get pissed off about a dad and his two kids walking/running it because they've lost their wife/mum need to go back to their bitter holes and stew.
Although it appears unfair, I don't really see what the issue is apart from someone getting angry because they cant do a run and they have had close family members die from cancer, and getting a strop over it.
I realise I have come across as a bit blunt and hurtful, this was not the intent, but the intent was to put my point across without bullshitting anyone. Far too many people lose loved ones from cancer, why are people still getting wound up and upset about something which is rather trivial in life? There are plenty of other opportunities to raise money for charity to help cancer research and treatment. It seems stubbornness might be at fault here and not equal opportunities.
First world problems
And personally I find adding a clause before you sponsor someone a bit strange. I'd be more offended at that and would much prefer a simple 'No'. Maybe because it just seems to be a bit too trivial when what is being attempted is all being done for a good cause. If your 50p per mile clause is really that important to you then maybe you aren't in the best financial position to sponsor someone in the first place.
I support both, but sometimes the politics involved scares me. End of the day if people are helping others, does it matter?
If you like; but I'm not hetro.
Now you see, I don't.
If you're getting sponsorship for doing an event, such as a half marathon, then you should be working for that money. Having a gentle stroll through the park isn't quite the point. It takes me about 45 minutes to walk 5k, if you're being sponsored you should be doing it faster.
I don't like Help for Heroes because they've muscled in with a high profile backer and taken money that was otherwise going to charities like the British Legion and SSAFA, charities that will also help ex-servicemen when they're 75 and penniless. That's all.
That's pretty much why I do it. I may approve of your charity, but it's your charity, so you have to show me that it matters.
Just because someone doesn't run that fast, it doesn't mean they're not working hard enough. During my last race, I ended up with a knee injury and didn't do as well as I'd hoped. Does that mean I wasn't working hard enough? In other races, I haven't done as well as I'd hoped, partly because of the terrain.
It's not always possible to go that fast - especially when there's the idiots in front of you who stop to walk and block the pavement / road.Old Mad
It's not about setting world records, it's about putting the effort in. That will be different for different people. Take the London Marathon; for me, getting round in less than five hours would be a big achievement. But my colleague is a pretty decent amateur runner and did the last marathon in 3h50. Clearly setting me a target of 3h50 would be too hard but setting him a target of 5h30 would be far too easy. Setting me a target of 5h30 would be entirely reasonable.
If Paula Radcliffe runs a marathon in 5h she's been a lazy bint. I'd expect her to run it in about 2h30, therefore saying that she gets no sponsorship if she's slower than 3h is reasonable.
If I run a marathon in 5h I've bust a gut, so saying that I get no sponsorship if I'm slower than 6h is reasonable.
That's what "taking into account ability" means. It means trying hard but not trying to beat Paula Radcliffe.
There is a case for effort-based incentives, but it's certainly nothing to do with the charity aspect. Many of these things double up as a personal challenge for the people doing them, and as such, I have no problem with offering performance-incentives with this in mind. But ultimately, your decision about how much you will donate should have no more to do with the efforts of your friend as it would if they'd decided to sit in a bath of baked beans or shave their hair off. You either support the charity or you don't, and if you do, you should donate what you consider to be reasonable regardless of the efforts of the person who brought the charity to your attention. If they were actually offering you a valuable service in return for a charitable donation, on the other hand, it would be a different story.
There are other factors too. If I regularly give to the charity already, I won't sponsor you, if more than one friend is raising for the same charity, only one of them will get sponsored/challenged (the more reliable one). I've got at least 6 mates doing race for life, I don't care if one of them sets the world record for a 5k, the one I've sponsored has it all on her.
Ultimately, it's all a bit moot. I've only ever come across one issue doing it this way. Every other person I've sponsored in this method has been very supportive of my way of controlling my spending (effectively) and gauging their support for their own charity.
Frankly I think I'd look a bit of a tool if I started to vet the charity to make sure I approve of how it spends their money, I rely on whoever I'm sponsoring to decide its a worthwhile charity
If it was about the charity I'd cut out the justgiving middleman and donate directly, as I do to some charities.
I'd expect the same person to return a Children in Need cupcake because the iced ear of Pudsey the Bear fell off in transit.
Tit for tat. Blah