I'd love to hear about that sometime. I wonder how much of attitudes are related to the ages of the delegates? I have to admit I feel a bit different walking around the Pentagon with all the recent changes - I would imagine they rock the world-view of many senior leaders. At least they are (almost) all publicly very positive on the topic.
I'm struggling to think of too many challengers to Cristina and I being the youngest- and second-youngest national delegates (and certainly the more dinosaur-like comments - there were some - were definitely coming from men of a certain age), and the gender ratio was somewhere around 90-10.
That said, my reading was that most of the "no" votes were probably motivated primarily by what countries saw as their self-interest with respect to the teams they currently have, more than by sexism per se. (We have a saying in Australia: "always back self-interest - it's the one horse that you definitely know is trying").
I'd be interested to know what the top women runners feel in each of those countries and whether their thoughts were considered. Never mind the simple idea that the sport should present itself as modern by not having separate definitions of "long" for women and men. Anyway, I agree that the fear of the women's time being made longer was a lot of the motivation for the "no" votes, even though that wasn't in the proposal.
What got me riled up more were the comments in opposition to the gender-balancing of the Vice Presidents. What do you think motivated the overwhelming number of "no" votes there? Surely it can't still be purely self-interest...
Really? didn't see that one coming, but what do I know about IOF? Hmm...
The gender balance vote was bizarre because I suspect most of the "no" voters didn't have a clue what the effect of a "no" vote was. (What was actually being voted on was to change things so that the clause which requires at least two Council members of each gender, and at least two from outside Europe, would now apply to the 10 non-presidential members of the Council rather than all 11 as at present, but I think most of the "no" voters thought they were voting to get rid of the gender balance clause altogether). The original gender balance clause got through easily a couple of meetings ago so maybe we just hit a particularly dinosaurish set of delegates this year.
The opposition that I'm thinking of wasn't to that part but to this:
"The elected Vice Presidents shall include at least one person of each gender, nominations permitting."
So, not just two of each gender on the council, but specifically one of each amongst the VPs. That it failed wasn't so surprising but I was really surprised by some of the statements.
We've not managed more than one woman on the OA board for many years, despite endorsing the principle (maybe the thought of working with me is too scary). Being in a workplace which is over 90% female, as many hospital pharmacy departments are, probably makes me rather too blissfully ignorant of misogyny encountered by others...