Men in Mini Marathon

MrsMcSteamy

Hi, I'm taking part in the mini marathon this year and have a few mates who are lads who want to do it for another charity. I remember seeing some lads at last years event dressed with wigs, but granted there wasn't that many. Just want to see if they would get a lot of hassle or be kicked off the course if they went. Don't want them to register if they are going to get nowhere.

Just want to point out I know its meant to be a women's only event but just want to give them some correct information.

T runner

MrsMcSteamy wrote: »

Hi, I'm taking part in the mini marathon this year and have a few mates who are lads who want to do it for another charity. I remember seeing some lads at last years event dressed with wigs, but granted there wasn't that many. Just want to see if they would get a lot of hassle or be kicked off the course if they went. Don't want them to register if they are going to get nowhere.

Just want to point out I know its meant to be a women's only event but just want to give them some correct information.

You have all the information you need. Its a womens only event. You and your friends should respect that.

TheRoadRunner

They could do a different 10k for charity! Women's 10k (a.k.a mini marathon ) is a nightmare for somebody who wants to jog/run it.

There is a men's 10k (a.k.a mini marathon) in the phoenix park AFAIK so they could check that out.

Krusty_Clown

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

There is a men's 10k (a.k.a mini marathon) in the phoenix park AFAIK so they could check that out.

...and dress up as women.

tunney

T runner wrote: »

You have all the information you need. Its a womens only event. You and your friends should respect that.

Oh equality. How it only works one way.

RayCun

first they get a 10k race, and then....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpXzKnnRDpA

elvis jones

tunney wrote: »

Oh equality. How it only works one way.

Happens quite a lot.

Women in work put up the dublin fire men calender..........not a word said.

So us lads put up the ryan air one and the women complained.....until mentioned the fireman one and all went quiet:D

hollypink

tunney wrote: »

Oh equality. How it only works one way.

How is it only one way on this case? Can women enter the men's mini marathon? (genuine question, I dont know if they are as strict as the womens one)

rainbow kirby

I can't be the only person who would love to see an elite men's race on the Mini-Marathon course... it's a pretty quick course when you actually have the space!

MrsMcSteamy

T runner wrote: »

MrsMcSteamy wrote: »

Hi, I'm taking part in the mini marathon this year and have a few mates who are lads who want to do it for another charity. I remember seeing some lads at last years event dressed with wigs, but granted there wasn't that many. Just want to see if they would get a lot of hassle or be kicked off the course if they went. Don't want them to register if they are going to get nowhere.

Just want to point out I know its meant to be a women's only event but just want to give them some correct information.

You have all the information you need. Its a womens only event. You and your friends should respect that.

It's not as a case of being disrespectful, it just so happens that the timing of the event suits them and they want to fundraise for charity. Thanks for the input.

T runner

tunney wrote: »

Oh equality. How it only works one way.

In Ireland: 99% of land owned by men, 95% CEOs men, 9x% of murdered women killed by men, 86% of TDs men, (more part time female cleaners in Leinster house than female TDs) etc etc etc.

Cop on lad.

T runner

MrsMcSteamy wrote: »

It's not as a case of being disrespectful, it just so happens that the timing of the event suits them and they want to fundraise for charity. Thanks for the input.

It is disrespectful to break the rules of an organised event (particularly such a successful one): regardless of whether it suits those who intend to break the rules or not. Tell your friends to find another event where they are allowed to enter.

T runner

elvis jones wrote: »

Happens quite a lot.

Women in work put up the dublin fire men calender..........not a word said.

So us lads put up the ryan air one and the women complained.....until mentioned the fireman one and all went quiet:D

Well done Elvis, you showed them....protecting the downtrodden men of Ireland! How many cases of the female being depicted as a sex object does our society project on us every day? How many cases of the male? An equal amount? No? Then stop whinging for God sake.

This delusion we have where we think that women get a better deal on the equality stake is astounding. In the early 1970s women here had to get a male to sign for purchases: Any male... even a guy on the street outside the shop. The EEC put a stop to that nonsense and twas a terrible day....shure hasnt the poor poor Irishman been trodden on ever since~?

Jesus wept.

elvis jones

T runner wrote: »

Well done Elvis, you showed them....protecting the downtrodden men of Ireland! How many cases of the female being depicted as a sex object does our society project on us every day? How many cases of the male? An equal amount? No? Then stop whinging for God sake.

This delusion we have where we think that women get a better deal on the equality stake is astounding. In the early 1970s women here had to get a male to sign for purchases: Any male... even a guy on the street outside the shop. The EEC put a stop to that nonsense and twas a terrible day....shure hasnt the poor poor Irishman been trodden on ever since~?

Jesus wept.

Who's Jesus ?

I seen double standards and i did something about it. Am i not entitled to do that or is it just women who can feel insulted by seeing such images in the workplace ?

RayCun

elvis jones wrote: »

is it just women who can feel insulted by seeing such images in the workplace ?

Did you feel insulted?

elvis jones

RayCun wrote: »

Did you feel insulted?

Yes i did. I asked for it to be taken down and was told " ah its only a bit of fun".

Yet when i put up one with females i was told to take it down as some females were insulted by it..........double standards.

mloc123

pah, women eh.. :rolleyes:

They are all for equality and then when they are treated like everyone else they complain.

T runner

elvis jones wrote: »

Who's Jesus ?

I seen double standards and i did something about it. Am i not entitled to do that or is it just women who can feel insulted by seeing such images in the workplace ?

Firstly, a picture depicting females in sexy poses also reflects and encourages a massive societal problem where woman are constantly portrayed as sex objects: perverting mens views of them and young womens views of themselves. This also exacerbates gender related issues like rape, domestic violence, prostition and even slave trading.

Showing men in these poses is not as harmful because there is not this huge issue in society that it perpetuates. It is generally just a bit of fun. If men were degraded in society and generally and continously associated with sex then it would be a completely different manner. People may claim to get offended, but without the underlying issue the vast majority of the offence is not present in that image.

So its not exactly double standards and if you you thought freely instead of pandering to what society tells you you could have worked all that out for yourself.

Secondly, you agreed with Tunneys assertion that equality worked only one way in Ireland: For woman and against men. If you look at all the statistics in all sectors of society you will see that this is simply ludicrous. Our society is closer to Turkeys than to Swedens for gender equality. This is shameful. Again, base your position on fact.

People who deep down oppose equality cant any more say things like "a womans place is in the home". " Sure arent men better at this and that".
What they can say (and do) is "look at all weve given women, are they never happy??"


Im not saying Tunney and yourself really think this way, im saying you are passing on a load of BS which does nothing only loudly announce how pathetic this viewpoint is when compared with the actual facts.

So why not actually read up on these facts.....think freely about them....and find an honest position. Dont just re gurgitate a postion held by people who 40 years ago were content that women had to sign for purchases and resign their post after marriage.

T runner

mloc123 wrote: »

pah, women eh.. :rolleyes:

They are all for equality and then when they are treated like everyone else they complain.

Why cant they be like Turkish women? They know better not to complain eh? Actually...in genedr equality terms statistically they are quite like Turkish women..

But well done.....good rise.

rom

T runner wrote: »

In Ireland: 99% of land owned by men, 95% CEOs men, 9x% of murdered women killed by men, 86% of TDs men, (more part time female cleaners in Leinster house than female TDs) etc etc etc.

Cop on lad.

99% of land owned by men - That is close to impossible. If married a couple is treated a single entity both own the property if I am not mistaken.

T runner

rom wrote: »

99% of land owned by men - That is close to impossible. If married a couple is treated a single entity both own the property if I am not mistaken.

If you think you you might be mistaken then why post?

I said 99% of LAND owned by men. Think a map of Ireland: red denotes land owned by men; white other; yellow women. What would the ratio of red to yellow be? Would much yellow be visible? Seem more possible now?

griffin100

im saying you are passing on a load of BS

yep, plenty of bs on this thread alright.

ThisRegard

Don't worry Elvis, I'm with you. I'm going to raise hell the next time this ad is shown after the ladies in the Womens Council complained, and had it upheld, that the Hunky Dory ads were " offensive, exploitative, tasteless, degrading and sexist towards women and brought advertising into disrepute."

It's a disgrace that men should be used to sell chocolate in the following way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brz8jjXuKyg

johnners2981

T runner wrote: »

If men were degraded in society and generally and continously associated with sex then it would be a completely different manner.

So men aren't associated with sex? Had to laugh at this.

There are enough sexism threads around without turning this into one

Zulu

T runner wrote: »

So why not actually read up on these facts.....think freely about them....and find an honest position. Dont just re gurgitate a postion held by people who 40 years ago were content that women had to sign for purchases and resign their post after marriage.

Yeah, you stupid man - clearly pictures of women are more damaging than pictures of men. Men aren't as frail as ickle girls, so pictures of them in sexy poses in the workplace don't matter as much. Geesh.

rainbow kirby

johnners2981 wrote: »

So men aren't associated with sex? Had to laugh at this.

Not to the same degree as women are in advertising.

elvis jones

ThisRegard wrote: »

Don't worry Elvis, I'm with you. I'm going to raise hell the next time this ad is shown after the ladies in the Womens Council complained, and had it upheld, that the Hunky Dory ads were " offensive, exploitative, tasteless, degrading and sexist towards women and brought advertising into disrepute."

It's a disgrace that men should be used to sell chocolate in the following way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brz8jjXuKyg

As a diabetic that ad disturbes me:D

tunney

T runner wrote: »

Firstly, a picture depicting females in sexy poses also reflects and encourages a massive societal problem where woman are constantly portrayed as sex objects: perverting mens views of them and young womens views of themselves. This also exacerbates gender related issues like rape, domestic violence, prostition and even slave trading.

Showing men in these poses is not as harmful because there is not this huge issue in society that it perpetuates. It is generally just a bit of fun. If men were degraded in society and generally and continously associated with sex then it would be a completely different manner. People may claim to get offended, but without the underlying issue the vast majority of the offence is not present in that image.

So its not exactly double standards and if you you thought freely instead of pandering to what society tells you you could have worked all that out for yourself.

Secondly, you agreed with Tunneys assertion that equality worked only one way in Ireland: For woman and against men. If you look at all the statistics in all sectors of society you will see that this is simply ludicrous. Our society is closer to Turkeys than to Swedens for gender equality. This is shameful. Again, base your position on fact.

People who deep down oppose equality cant any more say things like "a womans place is in the home". " Sure arent men better at this and that".
What they can say (and do) is "look at all weve given women, are they never happy??"


Im not saying Tunney and yourself really think this way, im saying you are passing on a load of BS which does nothing only loudly announce how pathetic this viewpoint is when compared with the actual facts.

So why not actually read up on these facts.....think freely about them....and find an honest position. Dont just re gurgitate a postion held by people who 40 years ago were content that women had to sign for purchases and resign their post after marriage.

Using the example of running events only to start.

Mens mini marathon, men only event. Huge numbers of women "to make a point that you cannot exclude women".
Womens mini marathon, women only event. Whinging, b1tchy and moaning about men "degrading the event by entering"

Cross country. Mens events are longer, always get some women running them to "make a point". Not a chance I'd be allowed to the shorter one though eh?

Regarding your comments on posters, degradation and facts.
Can you tell me the increase in make body dysmorphia? Could any one suggest a reason for the increasing in frequency of this disorder?

I know in my own house the odd time there is a comment like "Wow Beckham, I wouldn't kick him out of bed" etc etc. Harmless comments, irritating at worst say you. And they are however that doesn't make them any less wrong than my recent response "Kelly Brook, I'd lash her out of it". Its socially acceptable to comment on men in underwear but not women.

I'm a big proponent of equal rights - and not just gender based - however the key word is equal. Equal means no special treatment. No bias at all in favour of any race/gender/creed/sexual orientation.

So bringing it back to my original post - the exclusion of one sex from an event? How is that acceptable? Is that not discriminatory? How is that equal rights?

pconn062

Never mind all this sexism stuff, how dare they have the nerve to use the word "marathon" in a 10k??!! Rabble Rabble......:)

Zulu

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Not to the same degree as women are in advertising.

You have a shexehnessometer to back that up?

...but you are probably right, women do tend to be portrayed as cool, sexy strong go-getters, while the men are busy being bumbling incompetent simpiltons.

elvis jones

T runner wrote: »

Firstly, a picture depicting females in sexy poses also reflects and encourages a massive societal problem where woman are constantly portrayed as sex objects: perverting mens views of them and young womens views of themselves. This also exacerbates gender related issues like rape, domestic violence, prostition and even slave trading.

Showing men in these poses is not as harmful because there is not this huge issue in society that it perpetuates. It is generally just a bit of fun. If men were degraded in society and generally and continously associated with sex then it would be a completely different manner. People may claim to get offended, but without the underlying issue the vast majority of the offence is not present in that image.

So its not exactly double standards and if you you thought freely instead of pandering to what society tells you you could have worked all that out for yourself.

Secondly, you agreed with Tunneys assertion that equality worked only one way in Ireland: For woman and against men. If you look at all the statistics in all sectors of society you will see that this is simply ludicrous. Our society is closer to Turkeys than to Swedens for gender equality. This is shameful. Again, base your position on fact.

People who deep down oppose equality cant any more say things like "a womans place is in the home". " Sure arent men better at this and that".
What they can say (and do) is "look at all weve given women, are they never happy??"


Im not saying Tunney and yourself really think this way, im saying you are passing on a load of BS which does nothing only loudly announce how pathetic this viewpoint is when compared with the actual facts.

So why not actually read up on these facts.....think freely about them....and find an honest position. Dont just re gurgitate a postion held by people who 40 years ago were content that women had to sign for purchases and resign their post after marriage.

No i believe there are double standards..........

Another example which is see a lot in my work.

Female stripper at a party, thats disgusting fella's looking at her like that.

Male stripper at a party, ah sure its only a bit of craic.

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

Using the example of running events only to start.

Mens mini marathon, men only event. Huge numbers of women "to make a point that you cannot exclude women".
Womens mini marathon, women only event. Whinging, b1tchy and moaning about men "degrading the event by entering"

Cross country. Mens events are longer, always get some women running them to "make a point". Not a chance I'd be allowed to the shorter one though eh?

Regarding your comments on posters, degradation and facts.
Can you tell me the increase in make body dysmorphia? Could any one suggest a reason for the increasing in frequency of this disorder?

I know in my own house the odd time there is a comment like "Wow Beckham, I wouldn't kick him out of bed" etc etc. Harmless comments, irritating at worst say you. And they are however that doesn't make them any less wrong than my recent response "Kelly Brook, I'd lash her out of it". Its socially acceptable to comment on men in underwear but not women.

I'm a big proponent of equal rights - and not just gender based - however the key word is equal. Equal means no special treatment. No bias at all in favour of any race/gender/creed/sexual orientation.

So bringing it back to my original post - the exclusion of one sex from an event? How is that acceptable? Is that not discriminatory? How is that equal rights?

+1

Basically what your saying is that there is no such thing as positive discrimination... its either discrimination or its not both ways.

Could we just have a race for white irish men how would that go down.

T runner

ThisRegard wrote: »

Don't worry Elvis, I'm with you. I'm going to raise hell the next time this ad is shown after the ladies in the Womens Council complained, and had it upheld, that the Hunky Dory ads were " offensive, exploitative, tasteless, degrading and sexist towards women and brought advertising into disrepute."

It's a disgrace that men should be used to sell chocolate in the following way.

Again that add is probably tasteless. It is not nearly as sexually explicit as the hunky Dory adds. The words sexist, degrading etc cannot be applied without an underlying societal problem which this add can use and exploit.

An add depicting young women in schoolgirl like cheerleader outfits in sexual poses is exploiting societies perverse view of the role of women to sell a product.

The first add is different.

Again as free thinking people we are supposed to work this out for ourselves. A little joke can do wonders for our ego, but often little for our wisdom.

elvis jones

tunney wrote: »

Using the example of running events only to start.

Mens mini marathon, men only event. Huge numbers of women "to make a point that you cannot exclude women".
Womens mini marathon, women only event. Whinging, b1tchy and moaning about men "degrading the event by entering"

Cross country. Mens events are longer, always get some women running them to "make a point". Not a chance I'd be allowed to the shorter one though eh?

Regarding your comments on posters, degradation and facts.
Can you tell me the increase in make body dysmorphia? Could any one suggest a reason for the increasing in frequency of this disorder?

I know in my own house the odd time there is a comment like "Wow Beckham, I wouldn't kick him out of bed" etc etc. Harmless comments, irritating at worst say you. And they are however that doesn't make them any less wrong than my recent response "Kelly Brook, I'd lash her out of it". Its socially acceptable to comment on men in underwear but not women.

I'm a big proponent of equal rights - and not just gender based - however the key word is equal. Equal means no special treatment. No bias at all in favour of any race/gender/creed/sexual orientation.

So bringing it back to my original post - the exclusion of one sex from an event? How is that acceptable? Is that not discriminatory? How is that equal rights?

Great examples of double standards.

elvis jones

shels4ever wrote: »

+1

Basically what your saying is that there is no such thing as positive discrimination... its either discrimination or its not both ways.

Could we just have a race for white irish men how would that go down.

Mightn't get too many liverwho fans;)

walshb

All this nonsense about equal rights etc etc. It's a womens only event, why can't folks just accept that? Why would a man/men want to hijack it?

Zulu

T runner wrote: »

young women in schoolgirl like cheerleader outfits in sexual poses

schoolgirl/cheerleader outfits you say?
sexual poses you say??
dammit, I missed those ads!
Can someone give a link?

I only saw the ones of the women in sports shorts (volleyball) uniforms playing sports.

elvis jones

walshb wrote: »

All this nonsense about equal rights etc etc. It's a womens only event, why can't folks just accept that? Why would a man/men want to hijack it?

Because of equality. If i open up a pub and say men only, why can't people just accept that ?

tunney

walshb wrote: »

All this nonsense about equal rights etc etc. It's a womens only event, why can't folks just accept that? Why would a man/men want to hijack it?

Absolutely fine. No problems with this at all.

"Portmarnock golf club. ll this nonsense about equal rights etc etc. It's a mens only club, why can't folks just accept that? Why would a woman/women want to hijack it?"

elvis jones

tunney wrote: »

Absolutely fine. No problems with this at all.

"Portmarnock golf club. ll this nonsense about equal rights etc etc. It's a mens only club, why can't folks just accept that? Why would a woman/women want to hijack it?"

+1

TheRoadRunner

tunney wrote: »

Absolutely fine. No problems with this at all.

"Portmarnock golf club. ll this nonsense about equal rights etc etc. It's a mens only club, why can't folks just accept that? Why would a woman/women want to hijack it?"

While I actually agree with you Tunney you could take this one step further and play devils advocate.

"Womens olympic marathon final, why can't I run?"

I've no problem with womens only races in principle. Would rather do the garden than have to contend with 40,000 sufferers of double X syndrome!

RayCun

tunney wrote: »

Using the example of running events only to start.

Yes, let's look at the example of running events.

Before the 1980s, there were no women's distance races in the Olympics. In the Moscow Games, the longest race for women was the 1,500 meters, which had been instituted in 1972. Women had been excluded from track and field competition altogether until 1928, when the longest race was the 800 meters. Despite a world record by winner Lina Radke of Germany, many of the competitors had not properly prepared for the race and several collapsed in exhaustion. This led Olympic organizers to consider the race too strenuous for women. The president of the IOC, Count Henri Baillet-Latour, even suggested the elimination of all women's competition from the Games. Such a drastic move was not taken, but until 1960, when the 800 meters reappeared, no race over 200 meters was contested by women in the Olympics.

To whinge about men not being allowed to run in one race a year, or not being allowed run the shorter race in XC, when for decades women were not allowed to race at all takes some neck.

Historical context is important. In a lot of workplaces, there would have been no-one to complain about Ryanair calendars just a few decades ago, because there wouldn't have been women there - or if there were, they'd have been laughed at and told "it's only a bit of fun now go make some tea"

Jesus lads, HTFU and SIU. You've got it easy.

elvis jones

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, let's look at the example of running events.



To whinge about men not being allowed to run in one race a year, or not being allowed run the shorter race in XC, when for decades women were not allowed to race at all takes some neck.

Historical context is important. In a lot of workplaces, there would have been no-one to complain about Ryanair calendars just a few decades ago, because there wouldn't have been women there - or if there were, they'd have been laughed at and told "it's only a bit of fun now go make some tea"

Jesus lads, HTFU and SIU. You've got it easy.

This fella getting another mention, who is he/she/it ?

leggit

tunney wrote: »

Absolutely fine. No problems with this at all.

"Portmarnock golf club. ll this nonsense about equal rights etc etc. It's a mens only club, why can't folks just accept that? Why would a woman/women want to hijack it?"

well played sir, well played

They'll never have a come back to this one, their brains are only a third the size of ours, it's science

leggit

elvis jones wrote: »

This fella getting another mention, who is he/she/it ?

http://bit.ly/zcXRM6

ThisRegard

I think some people are taking this a little too seriously, I see this thread as initially humorous but it's descending into angriness pretty quickly.

RayCun

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think some people are taking this a little too seriously, I see this thread as initially humorous but it's descending into angriness pretty quickly.

sexism - "ah, sure it's only a bit of fun like"
arguing with sexism - humourless fecker, political correctness gone mad, etc etc

elvis jones

Equality is alive and well in Ireland

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-upholds-law-allowing-prosecution-of-boys-and-not-girls-for-underage-sex-540989.html

elvis jones

leggit wrote: »

http://bit.ly/zcXRM6

I thought it was this fella http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Navas

ThisRegard

RayCun wrote: »

sexism - "ah, sure it's only a bit of fun like"
arguing with sexism - humourless fecker, political correctness gone mad, etc etc

Ok then, I think you're taking it too serious, lent getting to you already ?

Apart from maybe one person who can be a bit of a stirrer anyway, he knows who he is I don't think there's any posts along the lines of what you're implying, i.e. the old wait till I get her home back to the cooker and ironing board and I'll give her a few slaps for speaking out of turn.

rainbow kirby

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think some people are taking this a little too seriously, I see this thread as initially humorous but it's descending into angriness pretty quickly.

Mansplaining, whataboutery and sexist bull**** tends to have that effect on people.