Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Race For Life

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Damn skippy you won't get nuffin!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that the idea of RfL as a female only event is that many of the female participants would choose not to run it were it open to men too. So my next question is, if it were open to men too, would the amount of male entrants balance out the women who choose not to run because of its non-gender specifity?

    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!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is a pity that it does matter. But another consideration, is that even putting aside the women who simply feel uncomfortable exercising with guys around it opens these things up to women who for religious and cultural reasons can't do activities like that with men around.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good point Fiend. And on the gym gender segregation - if women are given female only time, then men should be in receipt of the same. Yes, I agree that ideally it shouldn't matter, but those who adhere to these idealisms are few and far between.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    I'm apparently now doing movember...

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sneaky gay in what way?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Sneaky gay in what way?

    It's a Glee reference; my friends keep calling me 'femme' or 'straight-acting' and I decided I prefered 'sneaky gay'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    May I recommend "poofy hetro"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Race for Life is a women only event as it's about sisterly solidarity. So what? Run another event ifyou don't like it.

    As for Fiend, she gave the person a target ofthree hours for a half marathon. If someone can't do a halfmarathon inthree hours they've not tried hard enough. Why should they be sponsored anyway?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I see race for life for what it is, a charity run. I have sponsored a few people for it in the past. I'm pretty sure that money goes to cancer research, and not just for women.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    3pgxd7.jpg.

    First world problems
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just wanted to mention that women get ultra competative too and take it seriously. I find it a bit weird that Race for Life is for women only too. A friendly, charitable 5k would surely be beneficial to everyone.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its a similar story with some forces charities, a lot of people get quite pissed off when I mention the work I have done for help for heroes, because they dont do what the British Legion do and only help those in current conflict. Where as the Legion help all.

    I support both, but sometimes the politics involved scares me. End of the day if people are helping others, does it matter?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    May I recommend "poofy hetro"?

    If you like; but I'm not hetro.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Neither was my ex ex girlfriend. Though I suppose her rugby team didn't "know" that. Except you couldn't miss it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Its a similar story with some forces charities, a lot of people get quite pissed off when I mention the work I have done for help for heroes, because they dont do what the British Legion do and only help those in current conflict. Where as the Legion help all.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't be a sensitive flower. I'm not a cock. I wouldn't set a target a friend couldn't meet, and if they got injured, I'd hope they'd tell me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Same here.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Define effort? The thing is, effort is different for everyone. It makes me much more effort to achieve the same result as some friends of mine. (I'm talking about when they did their first runs - not their 100th or whatever they're on now)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you read what we've said at all?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It would appear not.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The thing is that you're linking your decision to donate to the effort your friend puts in, when in reality, it's really nothing to do with it. You should be donating because you support the charity, and your friend doing the marathon is simply their way of bringing it to your attention. To say "well you clearly didn't put in the effort, therefore I'm not going to support this charity" is simply weird, because you should be supporting the charity or not on its own terms, not based on the effort of a friend in an activity that ultimately has absolutely nothing to do with helping the charity. It's not the charity that failed to run the marathon in a certain time.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It helps me make a decision. I'm generous by nature, I have to put a limit on it or I'd have no pissing money to live on. I don't want to say, right, first five get five quid and that's it for a year. I want to link it to something more substantial. If you say you're running 5k for a charity that I'd like to support, and you were healthy, fit, and ran every day and then took a couple of hours, you give off the impression that the charity doesn't matter to you. So why should it matter to me? I'll keep my money, and wait for the next friend who wants it, and frankly at this rate, that takes about a day.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I hardly even bother looking at the charity, I'm not sponsoring the charity I'm sponsoring a friend or colleague to do something that they find challenging whether thats bungee jumping or running a marathon.

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I support my friends, not the charity, as a general rule. And I'd expect them to put the effort in if they want me to support them. If the charity matters they'll do it. There's only once I've objected to a charity- Shelter- and I gave the equivalent to The Railway Children instead.

    If it was about the charity I'd cut out the justgiving middleman and donate directly, as I do to some charities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See, we all do things differently. I think not checking what the charity does if you don't know them is naive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Agree completely with I'm with Stupid. Also it depends on what you constitute as 'effort'. Personally I'm uncomfortable with setting goals for someone that isn't even me. Opening myself up for a lot of criticism here, but when completing the half marathon for YouthNet I very stupidly barely trained and as a result had to walk most of it. But I finished it, it was hard and I couldnt walk properly for a week afterwards. I think my effort constituted getting through it in the first place. If someone wants to retain donations to YouthNet because I didn't complete it in 2 hours then it's their weird prerogative.

    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
Sign In or Register to comment.