Good article on the feelings of a woman running alone

UM1

http://www.active.com/running/articles/an-open-letter-to-men-from-female-runners


Edit..i only read the first line,

RayCun

UM1 wrote: »

http://www.active.com/running/articles/an-open-letter-to-men-from-female-runners

Though her husband sounds like a dick. She's coming in from a 4am run and he's waiting in the garden to jump out and scare her? Sounds like he _wants_ her to be scared when she's out running.

conor_mc

RayCun wrote: »

Though her husband sounds like a dick. She's coming in from a 4am run and he's waiting in the garden to jump out and scare her? Sounds like he _wants_ her to be scared when she's out running.

To be fair, that sounds like a bit of a made-up anecdote to make a point about not being safe until you're actually inside your home. Other than that, it's a good fair article.

joesoap5

UM1 wrote: »

http://www.active.com/running/articles/an-open-letter-to-men-from-female-runners


Edit..i only read the first line,

Theres so many poxy articles on this kind of stuff about women feeling safe, women and their sports bras and women on their period.

If any women out there want to read something really positive and inspiring about women then go out and buy or borrow a book by Chrissie Wellington called 'A Life Without Limits'. If you're not into reading books then watch a few of her highlights from races or speeches shes made on YouTube.

The woman is a no nonsense walking, talking legend to women and men alike. Shes also really articulate and interesting to listen to and does a heap load for Parkrun and world charities.

kit3

UM1 wrote: »

http://www.active.com/running/articles/an-open-letter-to-men-from-female-runners


Edit..i only read the first line,

Interesting article. Unfortunately a result of the dangers that are out there today. My only issue with it is to question why she would run on trails alone if she feels this way. There can be no comfort / real enjoyment in a run where you are nervous.

Murph_D

I'd be more inclined to question the behaviour of the troglodytes who shower lone female runners with unwanted attention. That's the real issue.

Extrasupervery

Murph_D wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to question the behaviour of the troglodytes who shower lone female runners with unwanted attention. That's the real issue.

That is a fantastic point. There is a special place in hell for the two men who cycled up and down the canal passing me four times in the space of about 7 minutes on a run last week. Maybe it had nothing to do with me, but the path was empty but for us and it was scary as hell, they must have known how intimidating they looked.

walshb

kit3 wrote: »

Interesting article. Unfortunately a result of the dangers that are out there today. My only issue with it is to question why she would run on trails alone if she feels this way. There can be no comfort / real enjoyment in a run where you are nervous.

Because in a nutshell people this reckless are "asking" for trouble. In a perfect world there would be no problem. Unfortunately the world is full of nastiness, and it's a person's first responsibility to ensure their safety. Making blatantly reckless decisions is just wrong. Education on the dangers faced by women is what's needed.

And to add. It's attitudes like "screw the dangers and screw the men, you're entitled to run alone on lonely trails" that is the biggest part of the problem.

joesoap5

Extrasupervery wrote: »

That is a fantastic point. There is a special place in hell for the two men who cycled up and down the canal passing me four times in the space of about 7 minutes on a run last week. Maybe it had nothing to do with me, but the path was empty but for us and it was scary as hell, they must have known how intimidating they looked.

I don't really know what kind of riff raff hang about the canal these days since its been done up but I have walked parts of it with company and cycled other parts once or twice. I havn't really ventured along it like some runners here.

From what I can gather some parts havn't changed much and you still have trouble makers hanging around.
You mightn't have a guy come over to you making Innuendos or lurking on a bike if you're male but you might get a rock fired at you just because you're vulnerable on your own and in an isolated area and someone needs a laugh.

How do you escape from certain parts of it if you are confronted?

I know I have a choice of cycling parts of this from work and I do know a woman who does it every morning and evening and passes the fellas who hang there each day drinking their cans. She says they're harmless so what happens if they don't have the money for their cans and shes passing?

I wouldn't journey the canal alone male or female.

kit3

walshb wrote: »

Because in a nutshell people this reckless are "asking" for trouble. In a perfect world there would be no problem. Unfortunately the world is full of nastiness, and it's a person's first responsibility to ensure their safety. Making blatantly reckless decisions is just wrong. Education on the dangers faced by women is what's needed.

And to add. It's attitudes like "screw the dangers and screw the men, you're entitled to run alone on lonely trails" that is the biggest part of the problem.

Would agree with the above except the phrase 'asking for trouble'. That sounds too much like an excuse for bad behaviour. However, would totally agree that people need to take note of what is out there and take the appropriate steps to protect themselves, however unpalatable that may be.

walshb

kit3 wrote: »

Would agree with the above except the phrase 'asking for trouble'. That sounds too much like an excuse for bad behaviour. However, would totally agree that people need to take note of what is out there and take the appropriate steps to protect themselves, however unpalatable that may be.

I meant it more as a phrase for my views. It's a common phrase. Not meant to imply anyone deserves what they get.

kit3

walshb wrote: »

I meant it more as a phrase for my views. It's a common phrase. Not meant to imply anyone deserves what they get.

Cool. We agree then (:P )

robinph

Sounds like a self full-filling prophecy to me.

People falsely think that the world is out to get them because they read an article that the world is out to get them so they go out in the world thinking that the world is out to get them and behave as if the world is out to get them so then have a story to tell about how they were scared of the world and then someone else writes an article about how the world is out to get them and they are scared. ... etc ...

The main point from the article was that her husband was being a bit of a dick, and should have been back in the house with the kids rather than jumping out of from behind hedges to scare his wife.

PaulieC

UM1 wrote: »

http://www.active.com/running/articles/an-open-letter-to-men-from-female-runners


Edit..i only read the first line,

ugh, I wish I had read only the first line.

rainbow kirby

RayCun wrote: »

Though her husband sounds like a dick. She's coming in from a 4am run and he's waiting in the garden to jump out and scare her? Sounds like he _wants_ her to be scared when she's out running.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. There are a lot of arseholes out there, everyone knows that, he doesn't need to be another one to prove a point.

HS3

That is mental! I was reading through thinking, jees how does this woman leave the house with this level of paranoia and then I got to the bit where her husband jumped out at her at 4 am! What a plank!

I've had people ask me for the time before but I usually just bark a rough guess back at them. Not out of fear theyre going to kill me, but because I was tryna focus Feck it...by the time they find out I was wrong I'll be long gone :pac:

I never thought twice about running in the dark (like most people ) until last year when I had a weird incident with a bloke who put the sh*ts up me. It put me right off running in the dark so I started going at lunch time. It was a stupid move, it was a non incident that became bigger in my head than what it was. I should have just got back out in the dark and got over it.

meeeeh

robinph wrote: »

Sounds like a self full-filling prophecy to me.

People falsely think that the world is out to get them because they read an article that the world is out to get them so they go out in the world thinking that the world is out to get them and behave as if the world is out to get them so then have a story to tell about how they were scared of the world and then someone else writes an article about how the world is out to get them and they are scared. ... etc ...

The main point from the article was that her husband was being a bit of a dick, and should have been back in the house with the kids rather than jumping out of from behind hedges to scare his wife.

This. She was a victim of some really nasty behavior but the rest is over the top and overly dramatic. Not to mention that she is married to a moron who is feeding that fear probably because it makes him feel all important and manly. You can live in fear or you can accept that rarely but still you will come across a psycho and saying or not saying hello will make very little difference. The whe article comes across very attention seeking.

I say that as someone who likes running, as a woman and as someone who has a bit of experience with similar and worse stuff.

Right that's me finished now I am going back to.just reading this forum.

BorneTobyWilde

I thought article was spot on and a true reflect of what most women runners hear and fear.

joesoap5

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I thought article was spot on and a true reflect of what most women runners hear and fear.

Are you a woman?

davedanon

Typical victim blaming from walsh upthread.

People are totally entitled to run/walk/cycle wherever they please. If they choose to put themselves in situations where they 'might' be at risk, then that is their choice and their right. I know I cannot put myself in a woman's shoes, and I know that an extraordinarily large number of women encounter everyday sexism and unpleasantness and sometimes nasty unwanted attention from an alarmingly young age, and that all the above comes from members of my gender. Too many of us men seem to be unable to control ourselves around women, and that makes me a bit ashamed of my gender at times. but the only way that parks and canal towpaths can be made safe for all at all times is for more people to frequent them. More people, and more lighting. What could be more insulting to someone who's just been the victim of an assault, than to hear from some internet troll like walsh that they brought it upon themselves by running down a particular road?

PaulieC

davedanon wrote: »

Typical victim blaming from walsh upthread.

People are totally entitled to run/walk/cycle wherever they please. If they choose to put themselves in situations where they 'might' be at risk, then that is their choice and their right. I know I cannot put myself in a woman's shoes, and I know that an extraordinarily large number of women encounter everyday sexism and unpleasantness and sometimes nasty unwanted attention from an alarmingly young age, and that all the above comes from members of my gender. Too many of us men seem to be unable to control ourselves around women, and that makes me a bit ashamed of my gender at times. but the only way that parks and canal towpaths can be made safe for all at all times is for more people to frequent them. More people, and more lighting. What could be more insulting to someone who's just been the victim of an assault, than to hear from some internet troll like walsh that they brought it upon themselves by running down a particular road?

rare that I find myself on WalshB's side, but I don't think he was actually victim blaming/trolling in this case. I think he was reflecting what a lot of other people in society think about situations like this i.e. she brought it on herself by running in that park alone/wearing those clothes/etc. At least that's the way I read it.

walshb

PaulieC wrote: »

rare that I find myself on WalshB's side, but I don't think he was actually victim blaming/trolling in this case. I think he was reflecting what a lot of other people in society think about situations like this i.e. she brought it on herself by running in that park alone/wearing those clothes/etc. At least that's the way I read it.

I didn't at all mean to imply that she or anyone for that matter deserves it. But when is society and people going to wake the fook up and tackle this from a different angle. We will never ever eradicate scum and bad people. It won't ever happen, so in saying this it is up to us to ensure that we give ourselves every chance to be safe.

People making reckless decisions that anyone with half a brain can realise is risky/reckless is the issue, and is where we should be concentrating our energies. That goes for reckless decisions to cycle a bike with no helmet, run on a road with cars, run on a dark road with cars etc etc etc. So many example of people not taking responsibility for their own safety, and society looking to pass the book and blame others.

I hear it every month on Crimecall about break ins and burglaries and attacks in the home. The bloody simplest advice is never given. Do not open your fooking door to people you don't know. How easy is that to get across? But it's never mentioned.

Back to this article. What woman would risk a run on a lonely trail with next to nobody about to help should she encounter scum? It has F all to do with rights and entitlements. It's got everything to do with common sense and judgement. This woman seems to have not an ounce of sense. Her hubby the exact same.

I am not sure how many men or women here have daughters. But I can say that I would lift my daughter out of it if I heard she was making decisions like this. That, out of nothing but care and love. I certainly wouldn't be equally as reckless to say "Go ahead, dear. You are entitled to run where you want and when you want. Don't mind the scum. You'll be fine, and sure if you get attacked or raped or murdered, so be it. It's his fault, not yours."

kit3

PaulieC wrote: »

rare that I find myself on WalshB's side, but I don't think he was actually victim blaming/trolling in this case. I think he was reflecting what a lot of other people in society think about situations like this i.e. she brought it on herself by running in that park alone/wearing those clothes/etc. At least that's the way I read it.

In fairness, I think Walshb had clarified what he meant in an earlier post. In an ideal world these situations wouldn't exist and dealing with the offenders would be the best solution. However, the reality is that there are dodgy people out there and bad things do happen. In that respect I think that everyone needs to take some responsibility for their personal safety and not put themselves in situations where they might be at risk or feel nervous. It defeats the purpose of running in my view. In particular, iif you encounter unwanted attention in a park/on a loop you don't go around again for more - that's just common sense, however much it annoys you to have to change your route.

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

That goes for reckless decisions to cycle a bike with no helmet, run on a road with cars, run or a dark road with cars etc etc etc.

None of these are necessarily reckless.


The rest of your post pretty much implies that every person a woman or man will meet when out on a run are seeking to do something heinous to them, and that's the problem I have with the article.

walshb

kit3 wrote: »

In fairness, I think Walshb had clarified what he meant in an earlier post. In an ideal world these situations wouldn't exist and dealing with the offenders would be the best solution. However, the reality is that there are dodgy people out there and bad things do happen. In that respect I think that everyone needs to take some responsibility for their personal safety and not put themselves in situations where they might be at risk or feel nervous. It defeats the purpose of running in my view. In particular, iif you encounter unwanted attention in a park/on a loop you don't go around again for more - that's just common sense, however much it annoys you to have to change your route.

Crimecall showed a case a couple weeks back about a lady attacked in broad daylight in Clondalkin. This when there were people in the park. That is what is out there, and that is how vulnerable women can be. The lady thought she would be somewhat safe due to the time she ran and where she ran. She wasn't. Now, the place where she was attacked seemed to be a little lonelier than the main part of the park. The perpetrator chose this spot due to its seclusion.

harr

I don't run but my wife does a lot...we live in a small town where there is no option but to run on lonely quiet roads..I am not overly happy she runs alone some nights and I am always on edge a bit..
She only has encountered one episode where she felt very nervous and she rang me to collect her ..a van with two men passed by four times and eventually pulled in up the road where she would have had to pass them..she turned back and ran other way calling me to collect when I arrived the van was just doing a u turn to come back up the road..probably nothing to it but they made her feel very very nervous and she has been nervous enough since..she runs with a group where she can
Both men and women should be able to run/walk/cycle where ever they want without fear or feeling vulnerable..that was the one and only incident in the 10 years she is running..

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

The rest of your post pretty much implies that every person a woman or man will meet when out on a run are seeking to do something heinous to them, and that's the problem I have with the article.

No, it doesn't imply that. 99 percent of the time nothing bad happens to people making reckless decisions like I listed. It doesn't change the fact that the decisions are reckless.

Oh, and the odds that something bad happens from making a reckless decision is 50/50.

walshb

harr wrote: »

Both men and women should be able to run/walk/cycle where ever they want without fear or feeling vulnerable..that was the one and only incident in the 10 years she is running..

Absolutely they should be. But unfortunately we do not and have not ever lived in this world. So, bearing this in mind that is why we need to make more safe and educated and wise decisions.

harr

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely they should be. But unfortunately we do not and have not ever lived in this world. So, bearing this in mind that is why we need to make more safe and educated and wise decisions.

I agree in some way ,it's just unfortunate my wife has to nervous running around her home town and she is the type of woman who is strong willed and won't let this stop her..I am not particularly happy about her running on her own..

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely they should be. But unfortunately we do not and have not ever lived in this world. So, bearing this in mind that is why we need to make more safe and educated and wise decisions.

We are also not living in a more dangerous world than in "olden days".

But we are living in a far more connected world where we know about disasters and tragedies within seconds and the only way that new sources get attention for themselves is by publishing scary stories. This just makes people more scared for no real reason.

There is no reason to be more scared of leaving your front door today than there was yesterday. Same as always though, look out for yourself, look out for others and don't be a dick.

walshb

harr wrote: »

I agree in some way ,it's just unfortunate my wife has to nervous running around her home town and she is the type of woman who is strong willed and won't let this stop her..I am not particularly happy about her running on her own..

Running on one's own is fine when we make sensible decisions. Women do have to consider more than men due to the fact that they are targeted for sexual assault much more than men, and the fact that they aren't as physically capable as men should something nasty happen.

Running alone for a woman on a lonely trail is plain reckless. Is it against the law? No. But I certainly would not condone it or dismiss it. I would rather encourage against it for the sake of women's well being and safety. If that is me being over protective, so be it. I love women!

volchitsa

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely they should be. But unfortunately we do not and have not ever lived in this world. So, bearing this in mind that is why we need to make more safe and educated and wise decisions.

In this unsafe world, the number of unnecessary deaths would drop right down if everyone just stopped driving. Fact.

So we need to ban all cars immediately then, right?

Wrong. Sometimes we have to take calculated risks, in order to live an acceptable life. And if it goes wrong and you have an accident, nobody should say, well what did you expect being out and about when there are madmen driving cars every day?

Women are as entitled to go for a run as men - and if someone gets attacked, the attackers are responsible and nobody else. Anything else is victim-blaming, just as much as it would be victim blaming to tell someone they shouldn't walk home in case a car mounts the footpath and kills them.

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

Running alone for a woman on a lonely trail is plain reckless. Is it against the law? No. But I certainly would not condone it or dismiss it. I would rather encourage against it for the sake of women's well being and safety. If that is me being over protective, so be it. I love women!

What's the stats on women attacked on trails? Do the figures show it happens more often than running in an urban area, do the figures show that it's plan reckless?

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Running on one's own is fine when we make sensible decisions. Women do have to consider more than men due to the fact that they are targeted for sexual assault much more than men, and the fact that they aren't as physically capable as men should something nasty happen.

Running alone for a woman on a lonely trail is plain reckless. Is it against the law? No. But I certainly would not condone it or dismiss it. I would rather encourage against it for the sake of women's well being and safety. If that is me being over protective, so be it. I love women!

How is it dangerous to run on a lonely trail? Who do you think is going to be sat up there waiting to jump out on anyone?

It is potentially dodgy to go running through a dodgy part of town at pub kicking out time for instance, but not on a trail. It is a risk running on a trail if you trip on a tree root and then nobody is along to assist for a while, but that makes no difference based on your gender. I wouldn't see any risk from other people due to trail running, probably the safest place to be out for a run.

The only reason for people to be scared of running through the middle of the countryside is down to scary movies and the media.

volchitsa

robinph wrote: »

How is it dangerous to run on a lonely trail? Who do you think is going to be sat up there waiting to jump out on anyone?

It is potentially dodgy to go running through a dodgy part of town at pub kicking out time for instance, but not on a trail. It is a risk running on a trail if you trip on a tree root and then nobody is along to assist for a while, but that makes no difference based on your gender. I wouldn't see any risk from other people due to trail running, probably the safest place to be out for a run.

The only reason for people to be scared of running through the middle of the countryside is down to scary movies and the media.

Absolutely. That and telling people that it's their own fault for being so reckless as to do such a thing in the first place.

(Maybe not in itself a reason for getting a dog, but one unexpected upside of having a biggish dog that loves running is how safe I feel when out with her.
It wasn't a factor when we got her, but since then, I've actually noticed a couple of situations where men clearly kept their distance when I might otherwise have felt intimidated by their presence. Instead they were obviously a bit careful about not "looming" up near me, I can only assume because of the dog. I imagine it's a bit like suddenly turning into a 6ft tall man. )

(Also, if you fell on an isolated trail, wouldn't she get help? The downside is you could fall over her of course! I already did!)

Ayuntamiento

As a female runner, I don't identify even slightly with this article. I frequently run at odd ends of the day and have never had any issues. I properly research my routes in advance so I know that they're going through well lit residential areas with plenty of passing traffic.

Unfortunately plenty of women have vanished into thin air/been assaulted just going about their business in the middle of the day. Am I less safe early in the morning/late in the evening? I think if you perceive that you're less safe then you're more vigilant and take better precautions.

As for cat calls, inappropriate reactions from men, etc, it's not something I've had much experience of. Maybe it's because I keep my headphones in and concentrate on my environment and how my run is going. I can't control other people's behavior but I can choose my reaction and I can choose what to ignore.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

How is it dangerous to run on a lonely trail? Who do you think is going to be sat up there waiting to jump out on anyone?
.

Trail is just a word used. Isolated and alone and with nobody about to help should someone bad want to cause you harm. Running in areas that are not lit, not busy and off the beaten track so to speak....In other words reckless runs for women.

It's simple: Give yourself every chance to be as safe as possible....

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

Trail is just a word used. Isolated and alone and with nobody about to help should someone bad want to cause you harm. Running in areas that are not lit, not busy and off the beaten track so to speak....In other words reckless runs for women.

Trail is not just a word used, it has a specific meaning.

So any stats to back up your point that all these things you claim are reckless?

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

Trail is not just a word used, it has a specific meaning.

So any stats to back up your point that all these things you claim are reckless?

There's no point in you and I discussing or debating. The usual happens. You get wound up because of differing views and you then throw about the troll term...

davedanon

The best way to make 'unsafe' places more safe, apart from obvious things like lighting and so on, is to get more people using them. 'Lonely' trails, as was said above, are probably far safer than unlit, unpeopled urban areas - parks, underpasses etc. Saying that a woman running alone on a trail is being reckless is patent nonsense. The stuff of horror films. The people who carry out these attacks and unwanted advances are opportunity-driven. Much easier to expose oneself or grab someone when there's no-one around. What we need is more people out, not fewer. And before someone says it, no I don't mean people being guinea pigs for my social experiment, and yes I do have a daughter, and yes she does run alone at night. I would hate to plant the notion in her head that she should be too afraid to do this, and that in the unlikely event that something did happen, then it would be her own fault. That's not the action of a loving parent, in my view.

davedanon

Why, heaven forfend that someone should call you a troll, walsh. Your behaviour on here over the past few years has been exemplary, and you've never even been banned or warned or anything for such carry-on.




oh wait.

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

And to add. It's attitudes like "screw the dangers and screw the men, you're entitled to run alone on lonely trails" that is the biggest part of the problem.

This is the sentance where WalshB gets in with a spectacular piece of victim blaming, like he does with all his other examples. The biggest part of the problem in my opinion is the gobsheens doing the harrassing, not the fact the the victims of harressment didn't do enough to protect themselves.

On a less blinkered note, a similar article the the original was posted in runners world recently.

smunchkins

walshb wrote: »

I would rather encourage against it for the sake of women's well being and safety. If that is me being over protective, so be it. I love women!

I know this is said with good intentions, but it does rather remind me of a weaker version of Saudi Arabia.
Women are not allowed to drive there, "for their own safety".
I think it is important to recognise some men trying to be kind and protective, whilst constantly reiterating about how dangerous the world is does no good for women runners.
Daughters should be encouraged to do anything. In some respects it is all about confidence, and this condescending attitude does nothing to inspire it. "No dear, you're not strong enough or bright enough to go running on your own, in areas I think are dodgy, don't be silly!"
I agree with davedannon, I'd like to see more women out running at night! To show others its fun and safe, and to lead by example for the next generation.

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

Oh, and the odds that something bad happens from making a reckless decision is 50/50.

98.95 percent of the statistics that WalshB posts are made up off the top of his head, and have no basis in reality

walshb

smunchkins wrote: »

I know this is said with good intentions, but it does rather remind me of a weaker version of Saudi Arabia.

Come on. No need for these comparisons. That's way off line.

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

Running alone for a woman on a lonely trail is plain reckless. Is it against the law? No. But I certainly would not condone it or dismiss it. I would rather encourage against it for the sake of women's well being and safety. If that is me being over protective, so be it.

What a load of complete and utter twaddle. Its not being overly protective, its being distinctly unfamiliar with reality (to put it at its kindest).

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

There's no point in you and I discussing or debating. The usual happens. You get wound up because of differing views and you then throw about the troll term...

So you have nothing to back up your claims that all these things are reckless? Do you know why? Because reality doesn't reflect what you're saying.

walshb

smunchkins wrote: »

g I'd like to see more women out running at night! To show others its fun and safe, and to lead by example for the next generation.

I agree. But one woman out alone off the beaten track is the issue. Not women in numbers and groups. That's fine. No issue there.

kit3

At the end of the day it's a personal issue for each woman and a call each has to make for herself. I know the limits around which I feel safe and make the call for myself accordingly. I have no issue with what other women choose for themselves. I would never attach blame to any victim but would hope that people go into situations with their eyes open.

walshb

kit3 wrote: »

At the end of the day it's a personal issue for each woman and a call each has to make for herself. I know the limits around which I feel safe and make the call for myself accordingly. I have no issue with what other women choose for themselves. I would never attach blame to any victim but would hope that people go into situations with their eyes open.

Fair point.

What would you (others) say to your daughter if she said I am going for a run alone off the beaten track with next to nobody in sight? Would you say "It's your life. Go for it," and hope for the best, or would you have words of care and affection in saying that she really should consider the choice she is making, and suggest a better alternative? Me, as a parent thinks this is a no brainier for my daughter.

volchitsa

walshb wrote: »

I agree. But one woman out alone off the beaten track is the issue. Not women in numbers and groups. That's fine. No issue there.

Why would you have an "issue" with women running at all though, even alone?
10 individual women running makes up numbers just as much as 10 women in a group, and is actually far easier to have happen. Large groups of people running takes organization - park runs are great, but not everyone lives near enough to one or has the right timetable to do it regularly. If women were encouraged to go out running, instead of actively discouraged, then the numbers would be there. And I'd say the same for men - the more people there are out running, the safer everyone is.