thread I agree with all you say with regard to the disappointment I feel in our current leadership.
The old boys just did not think of women at all - the current cohort do think about it, which makes their behaviour deliberate.

I always feel like women's awards are a bit condescending. 'You did really well, for a girl'. Perhaps if we just made sure we considered the extra barriers to achievement when awarding them? Ideally we would not need quotas or funding, but we do - we need to make it normal, so that we start seeing it in action and recognising that gender imbalance (in every direction) is bullshit.

For sport, in particular though, it is an odd one. Why do we have campaigns for women's events to be paid as much as men's events? Why not have one event and then pick out the woman who came top for a smaller prize, as well as her being in the running for the main 'elite' prize, which is not gender specific.

I know we would then see very few woman in the tennis finals, but then we see very few weedy men or fat fucks like me either.
permalink In the case of awards
I would say it would only be condescending if it were men doing awarding (which it sometimes is)

But everyone knows awards (gender-specific or otherwise) are a load of nonsense - the ceremonies just exist as networking piss-ups, and it's a good thing for women to have some of those without men present, that's the kind of stuff that creates other opportunities without further intervention.

I don't really have an opinion on the sports stuff, as elite level sport is all a bit silly to begin with, and like you say, inherently ablist anyway. I'd pay-per-view for the Fat Fuck Olympics though.
permalink I think an event where it is all women is negative for creating opportunities - you want the men
there to see it.

I also think that if men are not involved in the awarding (or rather, if men are excluded) then you again run the risk of devaluing the awards.