From: webel@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: Collegiate Cycling - Qualifying for Nationals
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:39:34 -0500
Organization: Georgetown University
Reply-To: webel@guvax.georgetown.edu
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.racing
Distribution: na

In article <16B63B85.97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu>, 97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.231316.2146@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
> webel@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>  

>>Women's points do not count less than men's, but their races score
>>less points because of the fewer numbers of riders.  I, for one, would
>>be happy to have parity between the sexes, especially in the Nationals
>>scoring, but then we would have more men whining that it wasn't fair
>>because they couldn't find women to compete on their squad and were
>>disadvantaged because of it. (and let's be a little less ridiculous
>>with our parenthetical remarks)
>>
>  
> So, you are saying that when a man wins a race and gets 22 points and a
> wins a race on the same course and gets 10 points, we are not placing
> less value on the woman racer. It looks like we are to me! (Anytime
> we place less value on the results achieved by person because they are
> of a differenet sex, race, gender orientation than the majority group
> we are just as guilty of bigotry, biase and stereotyping as any
> slave owner.
>  
>>I had previously hoped that this thread might die, as it seems that
>>about all the arguments have been threshed out, but it seems there is
>>a pretty fundamental difference between the collegiate cycling
>>experience at WSU and my previous time at Stanford.  I am a little
>>unhappy  that it seems the stress on teamwork and comradery that I
>>found to be the greatest hallmark of collegiate cycling isn't
>>duplicated everywhere.  It is too bad.
>  
> I am sorry that you feel that way. I am sorry that the experience of
> treating women as second rate cyclists is so popular in the NCCA!!
> I love the sport of cycling and we at WSU do everything we can to
> encourage all people of any group to compete. I am very sensitive
> to this issues as President of the club and as an RA on three very
> non-traditional floors.  I think that you have a flawed sense of
> teamwork where you can value someone's contribution to the team as
> less important than that of your own.

This argument is getting a little farther into the realm of basic 
civil rights than I would have expected, but I can see things in these 
terms.  The system you are proposing is to have to separate teams that 
have their own, equal championships.  I find this "separate, but 
equal" doctrine to be a step backward.  As I said, I would be all for 
equality in points for men and women at nationals, and in the regular 
season as the women's races grow in size and expand into 3 and 4 
categories.  I do not value any person's contribution to my team any 
less than anyone elses.  I started as a D and ended my time as a B, 
there were always women who were scoring more points than I could ever 
dream of scoring and this was quite just because they were better 
riders than I was or am.  I put my heart and soul into the team and 
all of its members from the D's up and enjoyed supporting the rest of 
the people, men and women, as much as I could.  Under the present 
system, every member of the team is important and only someone very 
unschooled in math would think otherwise.  We had plenty of races won 
or lost by the barest of margins so everyone understood that you had 
to help everyone else anyway you could.  Splitting the teams, either 
by sex, or by making only A points count would remove the incentive 
for good riders to pass their knowledge on and greatly harm the sport, 
it is elitist enough as is. 
Baird
webel@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing