My letter to WTC
As a man, a husband, and a father, I believe in equality. Gender, race, sexual orientation, the whole boat. I try to raise my children to be tolerant and accepting of differing views. I have recently joined the #50womentokona movement in hope to make some small gains in gender equality. I've seen real examples in my and my wife's work place, business, and social interactions of true and continuing gender discrimination. I would like to try to make the world better in general and specifically for my wife and 6 year old daughter. I sent the below email to ceo@ironman.com this morning. Doing my best to Lean In.
Dear WTC,
I’d like to start this letter by saying as an athlete, I am a fan of your races and your brand. Over the past 4 years, I have completed 4 WTC IM events and am currently registered to participate in two WTC events this year (IM70.3 Incheon and IM Louisville). Like a lot of my IM peers, I also have a significant amount of IM clothing, including some fresh new AWA gear, which until now, I had chosen to wear proudly during my training and daily life. However, I have recently joined and strongly believe in the #50womentokona movement. I believe that your organization has the power to demonstrate a true belief in women’s equality by providing the same number of slots to PRO women and PRO men alike. Unfortunately, this issue goes beyond some arbitrary number of bicycle racks on some random ocean side pier in the Pacific. Women’s equality is an issue that reflects hundreds of years of discrimination to women. Unfortunately, in our society, often this discrimination still continues today in many forms; in the job market, in society, in how men and women view and treat each other. Regardless of professional women’s statistical representation in the numbers, until we starting treating them equally, we continue to foster gender discrimination.
Will 15 extra slots on the Kona pier fix the larger issue of women’s equality? No, it won’t. But it is a small step forward. And like getting to the finish line of an IM race, each small step counts. Your organization has the ability to be a champion for change. Organizations like yours can make a difference. For example, look at how big businesses such as Walmart, Apple, and Yelp have advocated for equality issues over the past two weeks in United States politics, to positive effect. So whatever we do, whether it’s a business like WTC or it’s a single individual like me, I think our actions matter in the world.
In closing, I would like to say that I personally don’t think WTC is the evil, boogie man of triathlon. WTC is a business that produces quality races and products. As a business, WTC must remain profitable to continue to exist. I get that. However, as WTC is a business, I am a consumer. The only effective thing I know to do when I disagree with a business’ position is to vote with my wallet. So after competing in the WTC races that I’ve already paid for, I will look to other race organizations to provide my triathlon opportunities. Additionally, I no longer feel I can wear your branded clothing products and have already bought multiple #50womentokona clothing products for my wife and me to wear. Moving forward, I hope WTC can engage in an open, plain language discourse on this topic and demonstrate a true belief in women’s equality. When that day comes, I feel confident that I will once again race in WTC races and proudly buy and wear IM branded gear. But until that day, other triathlon and sporting organizations will receive my patronage.
Thanks for your time and attention,
Roy Ezell
Louisville, KY
USA
Comments
Adding 15 more pro women to the mix is basically inconsequential. There are only maybe (and maybe is being generous) 8-10 women who have a legit shot at winning Kona. The other 25 or 40 or whatever number is meaningless as all that the other women are doing is losing a lot of money going to Hawaii. So why risk the PR nightmare?
On the other hand, women do not statistically deserve an equal number of slots because women are nowhere near an equal number of participants. I posted this right before Kona last year:
Look at the KPR rankings for 2014 so far. There are 619 men and 336 women with points. That doesn't take into account those who are pros that do not have points for whatever reason, which would statistically be more men than women.
So just using those with 2014 points:
336/619 = .54
.54 x 50 = 27
So the way I see it is the female pros get 8 slots they don't deserve if we're talking mathematical equality. They only make up 54% of the men's field but get 70% slots when compared to the men.
Or looking at it another way...
619+336 = 955
50+35 = 85
Female pros account for 35% of the total pro rankings but get 41% of the slots. So if we're "equitable" and gave them 35% of the slots they should get less than 30 slots.
However you want to do the math still ends with the same conclusion that female pros are given 5-8 slots more than they statistically deserve.
^^^ That's if we're playing the numbers game. We all know there's more to it than that though.
Make it even and just be done with it.
This week, Ironman daily email highlighted an article noting that, due to the rule of minimum one Kona spot per AG in each qualifying race, there is a HIGHER percentage of females @ Kona among AGers than the percentage at the qualifying races. Something like close to 30% @ Kona compared to 20% at other WTC IMs.
I'm not complaining -as an OF, I probably benefit from the rule - just noting. And wondering why it's a problem to be fixed for pros, and not for AGers (meaning, why not have 50/50 split male female for AGers @ Kona?
Also, women seem to be doing just fine in running ... More than half of 5k-HM AG racers these days are female. IMO, only a matter of time until the same thing happens in triathlon.
For some reason, marathons and IMs still seem heavily filled with male participants. I think that just shows how much smarter women are in general than men, or at least less masochistic.
@Bob - As the owner of a master's degree in statistical analysis, I know that raw data math is part of the story, but never the whole thing. While in truth, I could care less about what the actual numbers are of pro women participating in triathlon are today, if we accept participation as a variable in the equation, the next question that should be asked is, "Why are the numbers so different in the first place?" Are there real or perceived barriers to women's decision to throw their aero lids into the pro field? I would argue there are. As to the point of who has a legit chance of winning, I wonder how many pre-race interviews or predictions to the 2007 Kona race included Chrissie Wellington?
Our good friend Thorston from trirating.com actually addresses both of the above topics much better than I can in this article.
@Al - I might call you lots of things, but feminist is not the first thing that comes to mind
. I see the AG vs Pro slot allocation as related but separate issues. I think the AG slot allocation works and is about the best solution WTC can present. I think all AG's should have an opportunity to race against like people and understand that due to the numbers, some will be over represented when a whole number slot(s) has(have) to be awarded. When more AG females ruck up to the start line, the available AG slots will naturally increase for them. Pro's are different creatures and must make real world financial backed decisions on whether the life / sport can sustain them. Already, some are being excluded from the dance and I believe that, at some level, that fact has to go into their calculus.
What I would really like to know is the reason offered by the PR / business decision makers justifying this. I'm trying to logically calculate what their perceived 'up-side' to it is. As Bob states, I believe it is and will continue to be a PR nightmare. There has to be smart people wanting to do the right thing at WTC. I just wonder what their logic is.
At the end of the day, the reason I'm picking this as an issue to plant my flag on is that I can't justify personally handing over the thousands of dollars that I spend on entry fees and branded gear to WTC as long as they hold this position. I also can't justify being a walking billboard advertising for their brand. My entire family, including my 6 year old daughter, has MDOT gear. My daughter has told me that she wants to race an Ironman with me when she grows up. I'm not a shirt burning activist. I won't march on the registration table in protest. I'll just show my displeasure the only way I can, with my patronage. This isn't world hunger or cancer I'm solving, just my attempts to make the world a slightly better (equal) place.
Truth in lending - my wife has accused me of using this as a leverage point to get to Roth. She was only half joking...
This is quite an interesting issue. I was talking about it with my wife last night and we got into a cart/horse discussion. IF the current population ratios don't support an equal allocation, then it doesn't necessarily logically follow to have equal representation. However, the current status quo is not the desired endstate..... At some point you have to take actions for force change. And it seems like that time is now. Will it work? Dunno.
Given that there is not one solution that will make all equally happy, I have to say that it seems that WTC has very little reason *NOT* to up the allocation at its Big Dance to 50M/50W.
Upside -- receive favorable press, avoid unfavorable press
Downside -- 15 less slots on the pier for AG athletes.
Someone did some analysis on ST about female participation numbers and how the longer the race, the lower the % of females. Sprint races have a much higher rate of females than Ironman races. Sprint races might see a 60/40 split whereas IM races will see 75/25. Al alluded to the same. The longer the race the more the field becomes male dominated.
The barriers are certainly societal in nature. Women, if I'm not mistaken, outnumber men both in the USA and in the World. So why is it they only comprise 25% of Ironman participants? Probably the same reason you see far less women at the gym or far less women doing recreational sports as an adult. I take my kid down to his elementary school every weekend to shoot hoops. I have never seen a mom there with a kid. Not once. See dads there all the time. Why? Sure, some sports are almost uniquely male, so I don't expect to see a mom out there playing football or baseball with her son. But the lions share of which parent I see out there with their kid (boy or girl) is overwhelmingly the father. No matter if that's basketball, tennis, bike riding, jogging, etc. Once again... why?
I don't see how there are real barriers to women participating in triathlon at the pro or AG level... beyond an obvious one like pregnancy. There are certainly perceived barriers but, IMO, that's more in people's heads than anything else.
I think the exposure is there for triathlon within the endurance sport segment. I'm certain there's not a woman doing a 5K or Color Run that hasn't heard of a triathlon. So why is triathlon having a hard time either attracting or retaining female participants. I know the physicality of the swim can be intimidating. After all, I would want a bunch of people much larger than me swimming over me either but is that one of the big issues.
I hope some of our EN ladies (who are not lifelong athletes) chime in and tell us their firsthand experience.
For the past 40 years, with Title IX, I think girls/women are getting lots of opportunity to experience and participate in athletics on a wide scale. While big $$$ at the very pointy end -football, basketball, golf - do go to men, in many other sports - tennis, triathlon - the prize money is the same, but the participation is still uneven. At the risk of "mansplaining", I suspect it's a combination of lower penetration of some competition gene, and cultural expectations re: women's role as social interactors, and as child rearers .
15 more bikes on the pier would take nothing away from AGers. But it would re-introduce some uncompetitive athletes into the World Championships, which is the issue I believe WTC was addressing in limiting pro numbers, both male and female. Maybe having the same points cut-off for both genders, instead of quotas, would be a better way to go for perceived equality?
I think a better response to Roy's concern would be for WTC to put more money into things like triathlon scholarships, both at college and in communities at large. Equal numbers & $ for both genders. That would send the right message AND improve the quality of the female pool of potential WC athletes. Playing with Kona slots is working at the wrong end of the talent pool.
I think the smarter course of action is to attract swimmers and runners to the sport. There's more or less no money or glory to be made after college for 99% of the DI/II/III swimmers and runners. Transition them to triathlon where they can be potentially uber-competitive out of the gate. The bike is by far the easiest of the three disciplines to get real good at in a short(er) amount of time.
@ Joe - you've hit the nail on the head for me with this and the larger issue of women's equality at hand. Cart and horse. Chicken and egg. Field of dreams. Open the door, set the bar, people will step in and reach the goal. Until you start treating classes of people equally, they will never be equal.
My bias is also clouded by the fact that our sport, specifically the long course version of it, is an extremely greedy and selfish sport. Most dudes (and I have been / am guilty of this myself) have little issue with willingly depriving our families of our presence for literally hours a day in pursuit of athletic excellence. It is deemed socially 'more acceptable' for men to demonstrate this behavior while this behavior is less acceptable to women (I acknowledge that I am speaking in gross generalities, we do have men and women being celebrated for volume on our own EN Strava leader board). I believe this phenomena adds to the some real and mainly perceived male 'performance edge' that is then used as an argument against women's participation / equal slots. It's a self feeding loop.
On the topic of perceived barriers to entry, check out the interview with Sally Edwards on IMTalk's Legends of Triathlon (episode 36) and her experience with generating female participation in triathlon. It contains a couple view points and concerns that we as dudes never think about. To me, regardless of if a barrier is real or perceived to an individual, that barrier exists because that person thinks it does. So if there is something that I can do to lessen or remove that barrier to that person, I'll try to do so. Like Al, I hope some of our fairer sexed EN members speak up with their opinions and experiences. I do find myself agreeing with the theory that women might not have the propensity to engage in our sport, but I think that might be caused by reasons that we dudes aren't thinking of. But then again, I'm a dude and not really qualified on that topic...
This debate reminds me of my last job where I spent three years at my military service level headquarters. Part of the pile of stuff on my desk was data/research concerning increasing and retaining female representation at all ranks/years of service in the US military in general and in my service specifically. Lots of time spent looking at quantitative and qualitative studies (real world and military) showing that gender discrimination and bias exists, often (but unfortunately not always) unintentionally. Most of my analysis, research, and recommendations on this topic ended with me in a room full of other, middle to older aged white dudes, many of whom felt diversity/equality is at best a PC and PR issue that had to be addressed because Senator so-and-so or Representative this-or-that asked, not one to be championed because it may be the right thing to do and that our wives/sisters/daughters should get a fair shake.
Women's equality is an issue that is discussed at great length at my dinner table. The latest statistic on this issue my wife threw at me concerned the wage gap in nursing (the wage gap at large is 23 cents across the entire US job market). In a population grossly over represented by women, in every specialty, at every tenure point, at every position (bed side or management); male nurses still earn on average ~$5k a year more than a female nurse in the same position. Are the 9% of men that make up the total nursing population that much better than the 91% of women that make up the field? Or is there a structural/societal gender bias that causes or allows this to happen? Our current president also brought up pay equality within the first 5 minutes of the latest state of the union talk as well. Not a lot of clapping for that paragraph of his speech.
While her book Leaning In is more complete and insightful, Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook's CEO) gave a pretty good Ted Talk concerning women's equality in the work place that covers many of the book’s high points. IHMO, its 15 minutes well spent. Its an interesting look into one viewpoint of how men and women act and view themselves in the context of achievement in general and in the work place specifically. Provides some interesting food for thought.
Bringing this back out of the stratosphere and out of the realm of Roy's personal vendetta to save the world
, I don't believe creating equal slots will fix any of the problems above. However, I can't personally impact the global job market and, in all honesty, doubt that I will seriously impact WTC's decision making either. But what I can do is model commitment to a cause to my children and not feel like a hypocrite when I give my money to race directors. At the end of the day, if I'm successful in those ventures, I'll call it a win. Time for me to stop typing and actually go out and train. What!?!
Funny to see equality issues crossing over into my hobby! I am a PhD candidate in engineering and will be starting the tenure track faculty search in the next year or so. Now THAT is where I get on my soapbox on equality (but I'll spare you good people my rant).
The TRS Radio podcast had a great discussion about this with the ladies from triequal.com. Some random points/thoughts...
I don't want to have to explain to my daughter why 50 men get to race for the prize at Kona while only 35 women do.
Participation and the sport as entertainment are two separate things. This issue is about the entertainment/pro side. I.e. Us fans watching sport for our pleasure.
As Rachel Joyce talked about in that podcast, it is not like there should be 12 men in the 10k running final at the Olympics but only 8 women because of participation levels (that fluctuate).
The women's pros are discriminated against by virtue of having to score more points to qualify and have to race more than men to guarantee qualifying.
The women's races are usually more entertaining to watch than the men's. E.g. Rinny last year, Julie Moss in 82 - without whom Ironman as we know it may not exist.
@Rachel - As you probably know, I'm a chemistry professor, and am, in fact, chair of the department currently. (Can you go straight into a job with no postdoc in engineering?) I think you will find that the HIRING process will be very welcoming to women. I am not saying you won't find institutional sexism out there in other contexts, but I think you will find that gender should not be a barrier to getting an interview. Feel free to be in touch off line if you like.
It's a ridiculously glaring example of inequality. I'm guessing if it didn't bother the pro women, Rachel Joyce and others wouldn't have taken up the issue. It sits right up there at the very top of the sport, where they "work" and make a living.
This is coming from an Air Force Colonel who has all of that and has seen many women drop out due to a stated lack of those things.
2012 there were 160 men and 227 women qualifiers, with 45 of the women meeting the "A" standard. 2012 did not have a men's B standard and all men were considered A. The 2008 Trials, with "B" standards of 2:22 and 2:47, respectively, had 134 men and 162 women qualifiers.( For the curious men's OTQ for 2012 was 2:19 and women 2:46(2:39 for A) , for 2016 it is 2:18 for A, 2:15 for B and for women 2:39 A and 2:43
I should add am a woman, and a software developer, now talk about unequal representation.
As to the Kona slots, everyone should note that the Age Group slots are NOT equal...between ages and between genders. They are proportional to the field size. Similarly, the 35 women's pro slots are out of proportion to the number of female professionals and to the total female field. Asking for the same number is equal only on its face; it is asking for an even more disproportionate share relative to numbers. For those that believe the number of pro slots should be equal without regard to the numbers of participants, then why hasn't this been an issue for the age groups? Shouldn't all age groups have the exact same number regardless of the number of starters in each age group? Or at least shouldn't the women's 35-39 get the same number as the men's 35-39 even if the latter has twice as many starters? If you apply the same logic then the age group distribution between genders is also unequal and apparently deserving of the same condemnation.
The main point is that unequal does not necessarily mean unfair.
IMO, the professional competitor is a different animal than the AG competitor, with different priorities and real world (financial, exposure, marketing) concerns than Joe Blogs AG-er who happens to be fast/skilled/committed enough and can afford one-two weeks in Hawaii. Sally AG-er isn’t racing or counting on appearance fees to pay the rent, feed her kids, or finance her spouse’s education. Angela Naeth, Amy Marsh, Sophie Goos, Rebekah Keat, and Laura Bennett are. They are also all female pro’s whose names I know as a triathlon consumer who (based on Thorston’s analysis referenced in a previous comment) would have made it to Kona had the female pro’s had 50 slots.
So while some link the AG - Pro issue, I don't think they are linked nor do I think they should be.
For me, it's ^this,^ proportional vs mathematically equal division of AG and Pro men's and women's Kona slots.
Roy,
Thanks for your note. I have been traveling in Asia for the past few weeks so I apologize for how long it has taken to reply. I am sorry that you are unhappy with how we have chosen to allocate slots to Kona. We have for many years believed the proportional allocation (the biggest groups get the most slots) is the fairest system for allocating our Kona slots.
There are twice as many professional men competing worldwide as there are professional women. Therefore we think it is fair that there are more men who qualify for Kona. Actually, women already proportionally have an advantage – last year about 16% of pro men KQed, compared to about 23% of pro women .
There are two different ways to frame “equality” as it relates to Professional entries into the IRONMAN WC races.
· Equality of absolute entries – everyone has the same number of entries
· Equality of achievement – everyone has to achieve the same level of performance relative to their peer group
IRONMAN believes in equality of achievement. Our philosophy is that the difficulty of qualifying for our World Championship should be equivalent for men and women. We believe that proportional representation creates an equivalent standard for men and women – so that all of our World Championship qualified professional athletes have cleared a hurdle of similar excellence and achievement.
To do otherwise would hold female professional athletes to a different, lower, standard of performance.
I hope that this help you understand why we have the system that we have and why we believe that it best serves the overall IRONMAN community. I also hope that you reconsider racing with us in the future.
My best,
Andrew
Either way, the arbitrary of slots given to pro's at a self proclaimed "World Championship" (much like how the NFL, NBA, and MLB call their final games "World Championships" although they are limited to North American teams) is a business decision by WTC to force pro's to race at their races, not something that reflects either the size of the current population or the perceived competitiveness of each field. If this was the case, I would believe the number would not be static year to year. Regardless of the fairness of that year's qualification process and the strings attached to the offer; in hind sight, the pro community should have accepted WTC's offer of equal number of slots to Kona two years ago. It would not be an issue today.
Either way, appreciate the cordiality of the discussion here. This topic has the ability to degenerate quickly (as it has in other forums / venues) quickly to an emotional, personal attack argument. Not so in the Haus
That's another issue I have as well. They (WPro) were offered an equal number of slots and they collectively said no. Now they're complaining about it. I think that was to be a mid-season adjustment and they (WPros) felt that wasn't fair for some to try and scramble to qualify at the "last minute" but it was nevertheless offered.
Sometimes numbers are really black and white and not up to interpretation. It's a fact there are X Male Pros and Y Female Pros and that X is about 50% more than Y. On Planet Earth the numbers are much closer to 50/50 put on Planet Triathlon they're not. You're throwing a variable into the mix that is in no way measurable or quantifiable: if there weren't perceived barriers for female participation, then the numbers might be more equal. The leap (not saying you're making this leap but some are) is that having equal representation amongst the pro ranks would somehow trickle down to the amateur ranks. I'm not sure that's something that would happen. It "might" move the needle a small bit here or there but I still think it would be immaterial. Adding more WPro slots at Kona only makes an even more mediocre and watered down field. The WPro race has very, very little parity of talent. There are really only a handful of women who have a chance of winning. Maybe another 10 that have a shot at a podium if the stars align. The other 20 or 35 (if it were increased to 50) are, and I hate to say this, kind of wasting their time, energy, and resources. The men's race is far more of an X Factor as there's way more parity of talent.
The stand you and others are taking is commendable but I worry there's some cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Like I said, I have no dog in this fight and I couldn't care less one way or another but I always lean towards the math if a debate is at hand.
Why is the WNBA not on TV for 99% of games? Nobody cares.
I'm sure I just derailed this thread but blame Dino.
As an analogy, I recall that the Boston marathon refused to pay prize money until 1986. In the late 70s and early 80s the era of "shamateurism" arose where smart RDs found some way to compensate the name runners, but Boston kept their head in the sand and the pro's started boycotting. Prior to paying pro's, Boston achieved it's largest field in 1979 and lost over 37% of its registrations by 1986. The year prior, only a couple of name runners showed up and the message was on the wall - Boston was fast becoming a 2nd rate marathon (to upstarts Chicago and NYC). They not only paid money, but relaxed the qualifying standards in 1987 and again in 1990 to rebuild the field. The race would have continued without pros but the reason people want to do Boston, the reason it has the reputation it does, is because elites matter.
If Kona eliminated the pro field, age groupers would want to go for years to come, but the relevance and prestige of the race would be greatly diminished. The TV coverage would go, and I believe there would be an erosion of the participant base across all long course races. And people like Suzy, who wanted to do it because Jane did, and Jane because her boyfriend encouraged her, and her boyfriend who did it because he was inspired by some pro might not enter the sport at all. It's very hard to measure those indirect impacts, but I believe they are very real.
Now to return to the original theme...the demand for 50 female slots at Kona is a demand for a GREATER share of the proportional pie. Not an equal deal but a better deal for women who already have a better deal than the numbers show. Messick's reply is spot on.
@Bob / Paul / Rich (and others) - I think we agree to disagree at the fundamental level of my original post and letter - To me this is smaller battle in a larger gender equality conflict. Current population (raw data) and perceived competitiveness of the women's field(calculations manipulated by both sides to their favor) are of lesser importance (to me) than the potential for the visible opportunity at the top. (I have major issues with the competitive field argument / mythology, but for the case of this question, let's take this as a given). But I think we've laid out our cases on each of these two points and that's what's great about a friendly, non-emotional debate. This thread has really helped me frame my logic and arguments in a higher quality way then when I started out.
So, putting my fight to save world through gender equality aside, I'm interested in your opinions on your 'positions' raised here.
- Population representation - Do you believe all elite level events (championships or the like) should have fields set on a given year(s) overall participation by gender? I.E. should the Olympics be based on gender representation in a given sport? Should NCAA track / field, swimming, gymnastics, or other mixed gender sports events be based on overall gender representation? Should the majors in running have fixed gender allocations due to gender participation? Does the argument against equal slots for female AG's at Kona transcend Kona?
- Field competitiveness - Does the field competitiveness argument against the female pro's at Kona also apply to the other categories of racers at Kona? Should the AG field be limited to only those with a 'legitimate chance' of making a difference in the race (top 10 or podium as has been offered in this post)? If so, who sets that criteria and is it an age/gender criteria or a criteria / standard blind to age/gender?
What do I think the participation should be? First off, I think you should identify those sports where gender plays no significant role in the outcome. E.g,. for "sports" like air pistol, equestrian, curling, and the like there shouldn't even be separate gender competition. Next we throw out farce sports like rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming. Now for other sports...it depends on what the goal is. Entries to T&F events are based on meeting certain minimum times. A country used to be able to get just one slot regardless of how bad someone might stink up the track. Then after a few televised skunkings, the IOC required a minimum level of competence...which means a country has to produce a quality athlete of each gender to be able to even enter the field. But to get 3 entries then all members of a countries team must meet a higher level standard. So a country could easily have 2 or 3 men in the Olympic 400m and only 1 or even no women due to the cut-off times. This method is NEITHER based on popular representation nor field competitiveness. If you want to go that route, i.e., towards a TRUE world championship, then countries would earn slots based on world class times not IOC determined times. Think of an Olympic marathon with about 300 entrants between Kenya and Ethiopia and maybe 50 more split between the rest of the world based on who EARNED them. By contrast, the so-called XTreme sports in the winter Olympics might as well be by popular representation since the entrants are almost solely from North America and Western Europe where that sort of stuff is popular. The point here is that IOC is all over the map on what it's doing. And basically that's the same everywhere else. The organizer makes the rules based on the reality (e.g., still no FULL women's TDF). There is no consistent benchmark for organizing a SIGNATURE event (a more accurate term than championship) you can point to in order to suggest that WTC is wrong in how it treats its signature event.