Shows how far we have come as a nation when it comes to equal rights. When she ran the first time, there was blatant discrimination against her because of her gender. Nowadays, it ain't no thang.
If we aim for total indiscrimination, shouldn't we just have a single category, let anyone run as long as they don't have any unfair external advantage and just give prizes and recognition to the first places?
EDIT: I find it funny that some people got worked out for me writing it "out loud" the truth that positive gender discrimination in favour of one gender is also actually gender discrimination against other gender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon#IAU_World_Best_P...
Also; sports are constructed by individuals, not society. Society has no agency and no cognition. It is a leaky abstraction mainly used by poor thinkers to make incorrect rhetorical points. It doesn't actually "do" anything absent individual human action.
No reasonable person is claiming that men and women have the same athletic abilities. That doesn't mean women shouldn't be allowed to run.
Events have different age groups as we recognize children, teens, adults, and mature adults have different physical capabilities. Should we get rid of age groups?
Many sports have weight classes as we recognize that a 150LB fighter is most likely at a disadvantage compared to a 260LB fighter. Should we get rid of weight classes?
There are plenty more examples available and are no different than having different events for men vs women.
In fact, I don't think there is a single professional sport where women would even finish in the top 10 when competing against male opponents.
In the same vein, most sports have recreational, amateur, professional, and masters (older people) competitions, because there are undeniable physical differences between the old and the young. It doesn't have anything to do with ageism or discrimination. I mean, I can off-the-couch trounce any octogenarian in (probably?) any sport - pitting the two of us against one another is not really a competition, or fun, for either one of us.
Let me explain: If I divide a competition between 100 men and 100 women instead of the 200 best humans and then give prizes to the 3 best men and 3 best women instead of the 6 best humans, I'm actually denying place to 100 men and denying 3 men a prize just because of their gender (assuming as true your predicate that men timings are clearly superior to woman).
Isn't it funny how this is not gender based discrimination?
From watching the race along the road yesterday, there were no elite men who caught the main pack of women (though a few straggling women did fall back into the elite male pack). Following that, while it was mostly a male non-elite pack at the beginning, there were a few women scattered throughout, and then it was fairly blended about 15 minutes later.
So while they stagger men and women to prevent interference in the race at the very highest levels (and a woman crosses the finish line first), women below that tier have a ton of opportunity to push themselves against men.
Edit: Also, they do track overall finishers, time-wise, regardless of gender. So a woman might see that she was the 4th finisher in her division (young women), and 16th overall.
The analogy I make is this. It's like getting to play on the field after the Super Bowl or World Series or World Cup just after the pros leave the field with a bunch of other amateurs while the crowd is still there cheering for you.
I can't think of another sport where you get to participate on the same field of play right after the pros and the fans are still there for you.
In Boston especially the entire city treats the runners like royalty the whole weekend and Marathon Monday. Everyone asks how you did. It's truly amazing and I'm honored and thankful I can participate.
I've run other big city marathons including New York and Chicago and while they are great races too, there's really nothing like Boston.
So again, thank you. And if you're a runner of any sort and the marathon is at all appealing to you, do the work you have to do to get to Boston. Making that left turn on Boylston and running to that finish ... I just have no words to describe the thrill.
I agree that if you're at all interested in marathons, the effort to qualify for and run in Boston is well worth it. I've done it a few times and the experience is never short of magical.
Random side note: Interestingly, the shortest and longest races (at least out of Olympic events) are where men and women are most competitive [0]. And, when Paula Radcliffe ran 2:15 in 2003, the marathon world records for men and women were only separated by ~8%.
Compared to weightlifting, where male and female world records are separated by >25%, running is pretty close. Swimming, too. Perhaps that's intuitive.
[0] https://zigapskraba.com/2016/09/15/womens-world-records-comp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_meter_air_rifle#Post_1_Janu...
Again: I'm all for opening doors for everyone that "doesn't have any unfair external advantage" (i.e. doping) to compete. What I'm questioning is barring the fastest runners from competition and from the prizes just because of their gender.
In no way I was asking for barring anyone from anything, so stop mixing everything up just to suit your narrative.
I would have some sympathy for your argument if you argue against womens only races or men only races, but most sports do not arbitrarily deny access to a given group, but split people into groups and try to counter effects beyond competitors control, such as gender, age, so that training plays a bigger role in the results distribution.
The point is that we are seeking to give prices to those who have gotten closest to their maximum potential, not for their genetic starting point or circumstances. Yes, we can not counter everything without splitting things up too much, but we can aim to equalise the playing field somewhat.
This is not discrimination. This is seeking to reduce "unfair external advantage". It's the opposite of discrimination.