Has anyone mentioned that fact that 4:00 men's mile does not equal a 4:00 women's 1500, and that Reid is setting up a false equivalency in her argument?
Frankly, 4:00 mile by a man is slow. It means you're a good D1 athlete, but completely irrelevant above the college level. Breaking 4 won't even get you a good enough sponsorship to live comfortably.
Now contrast that to a woman who runs 4:00 in the 1500. She is an absolute stud, good enough to make the final at a global championship, certainly good enough to earn a healthy living. There's a reason everyone went ape s*** when Jenny Simpson went 3:59 while still at Colorado.
Is there latent male-driven nostalgia at play here? Probably/almost certainly. However, freaking out over something so mundane does a disservice to/distracts from to ACTUAL issues of gender inequality. Rather than suggest (with no evidence) that this would compromise female athletes' marketability (which I can't imagine it would) let's focus on whether the female studs are making as much as their male counterparts. (Due to the notoriously secretive nature of the pro running contracts, I'm highly suspicious they do.)