Cross Country Respect, where is it?

September 24, 2008

Frankly, it surprises me to no end why women are not waving their collective fists in the air, voices united in song, harmoniously belting out the chorus of Aretha Franklin’s classic, 'Respect'.

Why it is women are not demanding equal treatment in regards to cross country racing distances, baffles me. I half expected someone to chain themselves to the wrought iron gates of the offices of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) worldwide headquarters by now. They do have wrought iron gates, don't they?

In collegiate, national and international cross country racing, men typically compete on courses measured to be 10k or 12k. Women race only 5k, 6k or 8k.

Sing it with me sisters!

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care, TCB”

I am guessing here, but TCB may mean to her: 'The Course was Bull%&*t!' I could be wrong.

Women have kept dubiously quiet about the lack of equality with cross country race distances. I know 10 and 12k are long and hard slogs to race cross country ladies, but remember 5, 6 and 8k move at a faster pace and there is less room for error over those shorter courses; all the more reason to move up.

Are women tip-toeing around the running world, enjoying their INFERIOR race distances? Are they whistling in the dark hoping the IAAF continue with the status quo?

Division I, II and III NCAA Women’s Championship races has been run at various distances. From 1981 to 2001 the race was 5,000 meters and from 2002 to the present it has been 6,000 meters.

From the Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS):

The distance for men shall be 10,000 meters +/- 50 meters and shall be marked every 1000 meters. The men’s course shall be a maximum of (4) four laps (2.5 km per lap) to complete the course. The length of the course for the women shall be 5000 meters…

And yet no one has said a word about the unfair discrepency.

The first ladies of running

It has been 122 years since Greek female runner Melpomene ran an unofficial 4:30:00 Olympic Marathon during the first modern games in Athens. In the 1960 Rome Olympics women were officially permitted to compete up to 800 meters only. It has been 40 years since Jock Semple, Race Director was blocked by Katherine Switzer’s personal line-backer during the Boston Marathon, allowing her to officially run the race as ‘K Switzer’.

92 years after Melpomene's resolute challenge, women's Olympic marathon was officially sanctioned for the first time. Joan Benoit, an amazing runner from New England won the race finishing in the stunning time of 2:24:52.

You’ve come along way lady, but why stop there?

These pioneering women blazed trails, literally and figuratively paving the way for the Deena Kastors and Catherine Nderebas of the world to train and race at the highest possible level. Just as importantly millions of female marathon runners around the world take up the challenge to compete in their age-group or just experience the fabled marathon distance are now free to run thanks to the pioneering efforts of the aforementioned.

On ignorance

There has been much made of past ignorance about women’s inability to withstand the rigors of training and racing. We look back now and laugh at the stupidity of it all. There were medical practitioners who actually thought that a women’s uterus would fall out while training. It was believed women would grow mustaches or suddenly want to become men.

CK: Ellen, was it sudden?

ED: Yeah it was sudden, one day I was out for a jog and suddenly it occurred to me that I wanted to grow a mustache and become a man.

CK: What stopped you from going through with becoming a man?

ED: I stopped running.

Forget the blame game that was what the medical world knew then, let’s move on. So where’s the fight? Where are the burning jog bras and public head shaves? Someone in the 60’s got their head shaved for a movement didn’t they?

Legendary Grete Waitz, an all time great marathon runner won the New York City Marathon 9 times. She also won the World Cross Country Championships 5 times, but it was 8km in distance and the men’s race 12k. Why is that? I am sure she could have won on a 12k course just as easily.

It is said by the wiliest and toughest long distance runners, that cross country racing is a very important form of running for power and stamina development. To excel on the roads and tracks throughout the rest of the racing year it is vital to run cross country.

Seb Coe recently wrote, “Try telling Paula Radcliffe, a world cross-country champion and winner on the track or Liz McColgan, with the same credentials that cross-country played no part in their prowess on the roads and track.”

“Cross-country has always been a vital part of my training program. You can develop fine muscular endurance and suppleness in your stride by running cross-country. It also develops good running form and strengthens your muscles.” -Arthur Lydiard

I say its high time women are given the opportunity to race over the correct distances in cross country! Raise your voices and demand to be treated with R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Solidify your place as a pioneer in this final frontier of inequality. Proudly demand to have your cross country races competed over the same distances as men, because ladies, you deserve to be treated fairly and equally.

_______________________________________

Chris is a member of the Lydiard Foundation

Contact: chriskelsall@flocasts.org

Post a Comment

#41	Andi September 26, 2008 at 8:49pm Christopher, I did notice that you made the comments about 5k's also being hard, but the whole bent of your article is implying that women run the shorter distance because it's not as hard. This is evidenced by your description of 10k and 12k as long hard slogs, and your description of 5k and 6k as inferior distance. I agree that the difference in racing distance certainly could be sexist. I don't actually know why there's a difference in race distance, but I suspect it's as someone else posted, old ideas of what women can handle. But I have to say, I love love love the 5k. I would be very sad to see it go. And that's why you won't hear any complaining from me! reply
#40	TBStyles September 26, 2008 at 3:07pm I shoddy longer for the ladays babay. reply
#39	Lara Elford September 26, 2008 at 2:26pm What is wonderful about this article is it's unorthodoxed and multi-layered stylizing of humour, irony (sarcastic and otherwise) satire containing wit. The question is not simply why are women running shorter distances today in cross country races. It also asks why women have said little, cheakily poking fun at federations and the women themselves. I think it is indeed fun to read. And to the poor boys who don't catch on very fast. That is ok after all, some people are meant to swing axes and some are meant to communicate. The important question amongst the people who left comments now is. Have the ax swinger, swung into territory they do not belong? Keep on running folks! And never be afraid to ask why. reply
#38	Anonymous Coward September 26, 2008 at 6:22am i wish they would bring back the womens championship 4k at USA xc. what the f. reply
#37	Candice Chavez September 25, 2008 at 9:13pm (not my original post) The best answer: we run different races only because of tradition. I'm sure people long ago thought women should run shorter than the guys because their bodies were different. Now that we know a 10k is a 10k whether you are male or female, different lengths is an outdated way to conceptualize female distance running. OK, now I can relax ;) Gook luck to everyone racing this weekend!! reply
#36	Matt September 25, 2008 at 6:11pm Everybody needs to chill out. Go for a run and relax wow reply
#35	JT September 25, 2008 at 4:00pm Humour is a personal matter. Some people find one thing funny, as the next may not. Some people get humour some don't. Now whether this article is considered funny by someone is a moot point. It is written in the way. This distance thing is actually a VALID question. Just enjoy the discussion on it. As for a couple you men getting angry that just shows immaturity and perhaps a childish sense of irony. OR lack of. My 10 year old daughter and 12 year old son both got it. reply
#34	Gcrunner September 25, 2008 at 12:39pm just run whatever distance the race is, do ur best, and that is all u can do. Stop getting your panties in a bunch about stuff like this. Plus, i bet, there is a lot more ladies out there who like the shorter races reply
#33	Shatsy September 25, 2008 at 11:13am No one cares about cross country, men or women reply
#32	Mike Higgins September 25, 2008 at 9:37am HEY! DIII guys only run 8k's. Sometimes even 6k's and 4 mile races at the beginning of the season. Not just 10k and 12k. Good point though. Woman need to ask for a more standard distance. reply
#31	Katelynn Krahn September 25, 2008 at 8:59am Interesting point. However, one has to remember that there is a difference between equality and equity. "Equal treatment" in running would mean the standards for qualifying for Nationals in track would be the same for both women and men. As much as I wish this could happen, we know it would take a superwoman of a lady to run with elite men. As for increasing the distance of our races: people need to realize that feminism does not have a "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality. We should not want to change our race because that is what the guys are doing. If we want to request a distance change it should be because we feel that an 8k or 10k is a more challenging race. Until I am convinced this is so, I will continue running my 5k and burning my bras. reply
#30	Diane September 25, 2008 at 6:42am Great article - it's definitely time to look at the distance for women's cross country. The shorter distance is probably the passive result of a time when women were just thought to be physically weaker. Nowadays, it's just an issue of what you want the race to be. (There are many studies that have looked at women's physiology with regard to endurance, but it's only 8 or 10k that we're talking about. We can handle it. Somewhere someone showed that if you take a female and a male marathoner and put them in an ultra, often she will beat him. I'll bet she gets a lot of RESPECT for that!) The 8-10k distance brings a significant element of endurance to the race compared to a 5-6k - it's just a different race. I like it. reply
#29	Christopher Kelsall September 25, 2008 at 12:48am Candice, Your initial comment seems to have disappeared however, you made a valid point, please feel free (and for the sake of balance) to re-post it. Best, Chris reply
#28	Candice Chavez September 25, 2008 at 12:42am I thought about this last season, but didn't really know who I would talk to or how to bring it up. I asked around, and no one could really tell me why XC is set up for women to run shorter. Believe me, I think they are EQUALLY hard. I just don't like the idea that some association decided, "Let's have the women run shorter." Why did the idea of having us run shorter even pop in their minds? I really just want to know why they made the difference if the difference was unnecessary. reply
#27	Hillerie Denning September 25, 2008 at 12:30am Well it would seem that your attempt at humour has ignited a small fire storm. If women can do Iron Man, they can run 10K XC. The interesting question might be why have we never seen any female runners demanding the longer XC distances. reply
#26	Brian Hatcher September 25, 2008 at 12:00am Christopher - in order for you to claim that something is humorous, it has to be......you know.....funny reply
#25	Christopher Kelsall September 24, 2008 at 10:39pm Before anyone completely loses their composure, please keep in mind this is written in the context of 'satire'. Satire is a form of humour - irony and humour. There is nothing serious about this article in any way - it pokes fun. By the way, it appears that the women, 'got it'. reply
#24	Chris Cowden September 24, 2008 at 9:33pm Oh, and the comment about 5k somehow being an "inferior" race distance... what the heck are you smoking?! I am completely baffled as to why 5k is inferior to 8k or 10k. Why running a 5k XC race is somehow a put-down or slap in the face. Are you cooler if you run further? Is there some superior status that goes along with running further that I don't know about? The "final frontier of inequality"??? Give me a break! Heck, if it had always been that men ran 5k and women ran 10k, you would probably be writing this same article saying women are being discriminated against because they are made to run further and they deserve the same respect men get to run the 5k. The point is, there is nothing discriminatory about one race distance over the other. Making up crap like this, that just plain doesn't exist, is a setback. Not a step forward. reply
#23	Asia Myrland September 24, 2008 at 9:03pm As a girl, I think running a 10k in cross would be awesome. 5k and 6k is just too short. reply
#22	Chris Cowden September 24, 2008 at 8:21pm This is stupid. There are TONS of sports wheer women and men have different versions, lengths, sets, time, etc. Tennis, volleyball, softball, yadda yadda yadda. It's just sports and it's just differences. To make it into some kind of equality issue is just stupid. Heck, why not just eliminate women's events all together and just call it sports. No men's and women's teams, just ONE team. No men's and women's records, just ONE record. I mean, wouldn't THAT be true equality? The 2 are just different. Why make it any more of an issue? reply
#21	Big Sky September 24, 2008 at 7:41pm Here is the deal: who cares if men run an extra 4k at nationals than women do. Was Prefontaine a big wuss because he focused primarily on the 5k rather than on the 10k. Is Hicham El Guerrouj less of a runner than Bekele because he runs the mile and not the 10k???? The answer is obviously no. Both the 6k and the 10k are equally hard if run all out...so quit complaining and run the stinking race reply
#20	Cara Hawkins September 24, 2008 at 7:35pm As a woman, I like running 5ks and 6ks..I'm not complaining. reply
#19	wtfpillowshirt September 24, 2008 at 7:21pm No, I used the word correctly, I'm not going to argue semantics anyway, especially with someone who is clearly only interested in coming off as a condescending tool. You might want to spend another year in grad school if you are interested more in addressing grammar than issue anyway. This issue has nothing to do with respect, and everyone knows it. That is why women won't "chain themselves to the wrought iron gates of the offices of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) worldwide headquarters" because it is a stupid non-issue. The truth of the matter is, women can't run as fast as men, there isn't gender equality because the genders aren't equal. You might as well demand the abolition of different gender divisions, just run guys and girls in one big race. reply
#18	Drue September 24, 2008 at 7:19pm FYI the number of xc/track scholarships given to girls and guys varies from school to school. at my school, the same number of scholarships go to both. interesting article. you don't usually think a sport like xc could be skewed. but i guess the same is true for tennis- guys play more matches/sets or whatever. I took a sociology class, and the teacher said differences like that served as "proof" to society that men were more capable. whether or not that's true, all races and genders should just be given the same standards. reply
#17	SallyL September 24, 2008 at 7:18pm I think this is great to see up on Flo...nice subject matter for a change. Topical. reply
#16	JT September 24, 2008 at 6:49pm WOmen can, as you can see the guy talks about Grete Waitz and Join Benoit running marathons. How far is a marathon? It is the same for men and women...so are 10ks. Why are cross diff? To wtfpillowshirt, Nice dictionary junior, you used incongruity in the wrong context... reply
#15	Your Mom September 24, 2008 at 6:42pm so what if guys get to run longer. FR 2, did you ever think about how guys have longer legs and bigger lungs? it IS easier for guys to run a 10k than it is for a girl. i see girls passing out after 5k's in xc. hell no can they run a 10k in cross. the anser is simple- physiology. reply
#14	Female Runner 2 September 24, 2008 at 6:26pm I don't think the question of equality here is "Which sex has the harder distance?" I think the article is trying to uncover WHY we think women should run a shorter distance...and, why that reason (whatever it is) has been untouched by criticisim. Think about this, what would be Nonrunner Joe's immediate impression of the capabilities of male and female runners when he is told "Well the men run 10k but the women run 8k." He would probably think, "oh, well maybe its better for the women to run shorter than the men." So why do we think it's better for the women to run shorter? Personally, I think it is because of they same silly, out-dated reasons: women's bodies can't handle it, they can't train for it, they are less physically capable to race that distance in XC. As you can guess, I liked the article because it at least brought some conversation about the issue and makes some people think about stuff that they take as "normal." It's funny how no one has a real explanation to why women run shorter, but apparently most of the men on here like it that way. Interesting.. reply
#13	Agirl September 24, 2008 at 6:22pm i found this article interesting.. its definitely something i've thought about AS A GIRL. there is no need to sh-t on it boys reply
#12	White Male September 24, 2008 at 6:00pm Think about that statement, and tell me that you honestly feel disadvantaged as a white male, the most priveledged group in this country. I really hope you're kidding, becuase if you're not it's time to count your blessings. reply
#11	Equity September 24, 2008 at 5:15pm In a modern collegiate system of Title IX and affirmative action quotas, perhaps its the white males who should be whining reply
#10	Female Runner September 24, 2008 at 5:13pm Why are longer distances necessarily "correct"? This is subjective. It reminds of people who ask "have you run a marathon?", as if this is a true indicator of whether someone is a runner. You could make an equally strong argument that the men should come down in distance so that they can develop their speed. reply
#9	Shorty September 24, 2008 at 3:26pm I would like to see some women respond to this article, instead of guys... reply
#8	wtfpillowshirt September 24, 2008 at 3:14pm The guys are the ones who get shafted in Cross Country and Track. Women get 18 scholarships to men's 12.6. I would rather not hear utterly groundless moaning about distance incongruity when the sport is so obvious skewed in women's favor. reply
#7	Sean Bowen September 24, 2008 at 2:30pm I actually don't think it's as big a deal as your making it out to be. reply
#6	Christopher Kelsall September 24, 2008 at 2:29pm Andi, Thank you for your feedback. Please re-read and note that I did say racing the shorter distance can be harder, as the short races go at a faster pace...less room for error. They are both tougher. C reply
#5	Andi September 24, 2008 at 2:23pm C'mon, do you really think a 10k is "harder" than a 5k? That's silly. They're entirely different races. reply
#4	Matthew Duffy September 24, 2008 at 1:21pm Seriously? This article is my least favorite on flotrack thus far. Although I may be missing some element of satire or sarcasim. reply
#3	Anonymous Coward September 24, 2008 at 1:21pm Hell Yeah...very much in agreement with this outline! reply
#2	John Darmody September 24, 2008 at 1:08pm college men usually run 8k throughout the season up to Regionals where the distance changes to 10k reply
#1	Anonymous Coward September 24, 2008 at 11:24am Actually DII has been 6k since 1998, reply