Howdy,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Moore, John wrote:
> > How'd their times stack up against the other ES competition? They deserve
> > exactly as much credit as their times warrant. To say otherwise is to say
> > that women are handicapped in their driving ability. I consider THAT
> > offensive.
> >
> [Moore, John] And why should that matter? All classes are set up as
> an attempt at fair competition WITHIN the class. That is the point you are
> missing.
So when the only difference between the classes is the sex of the driver
and the winner of the ladies class would have been in 23rd (5+ seconds
behind the winner) in open, what should we conclude? Given the same
cars, courses, and weather that is. Either the class is softer or women
can't drive. Pick one. Or tell me what I'm missing here.
> And I am not the one who is saying, to quote you "that women are
> handicapped in their driving ability", you and Karen Kraus and several
> others are. Do you people not understand how insulting it is to have your
> accomplishments attacked because of the class you chose?
Sometimes the truth hurts. The fact of the matter is that in all forms of
racing (not just solo) there will be easier and harder classes to win.
And I think you're a bit confused. Karen and Mr. Moore are fairly
explicitly saying that there should be _no_ difference in driving ability
between men and women. The point some folks are making is that
perpetuating the ladies classes makes it _seem_ as if there was a driving
ability gap. Many folks, including me, don't believe there's any reason
for this gap to exist. When you couple that with the plethora of classes
that we have, you further justify elimination of the ladies classes at
divisional or higher events.
Obviously in my opinion.
Mark
|