Here's the deal. Speed limits are in mph here. Unless they switch them to kmh, the 1500m is the nostalgic distance.
Here's the deal. Speed limits are in mph here. Unless they switch them to kmh, the 1500m is the nostalgic distance.
Apparently her energy to run has been drained for a long time.
She's probably just jealous that no woman has been able to run as fast as old white dudes like Coghlan and dare I say Whiteman.
listen here wrote:
Great post. It amazes me how it's ok to hate on white men. Can you imagine if she said "young black dudes are draining my energy." She'd probably loser her sponsorship in 5 minutes.
Great point.
This mile crap is nothing. Does she realize what American old white dudes think bacon is, eh? Let's crack a Molson and get this sorted right now, eh?
Apparently thinking the mile is a cool distance is part of some sort of larger "war on women?" What a nut. Talk about uptown problems.
Also, she's wrong that women have no history in the mile, and in college I respected several female milers on our team as tough athletes. It was actually easier to quantify what they'd done when they ran the mile.
How many 1500s per gallon does her car get?
I agree that she should be ashamed of (improperly as it turns out) bashing white men. Someone should tweet her back, "Seriously, I hate old white men!"
mid-20s, self-angry feminists are draining my energy rn
Actually I'm going to a bar to meet some right now (I'm ready 4 Hillary , Trump is a racist!).
Hilariously, we see Lewis' Law in play on this very thread:
The comments on articles about feminism justify feminism.
Why isn't Sheila pissed that women only race 6k in XC?
hahahaha wrote:
Hilariously, we see Lewis' Law in play on this very thread:
The comments on articles about feminism justify feminism.
Jerry Lewis?
“shitpost.â€
“To make utterly worthless and inane posts on an internet message board.â€
As in shitposting about Sheila Reid. Of course, she was shitposting about old white guys.
Just Tuned In wrote:
I know some of you like to toss around the term "PC," but what does anything she said have to do with PC?
I'm an old white man who pretty much agrees with her. And think of Rowbury's and Simpson's efforts to get under 4:00 for the 1500. Sort of meaningful to women.
Another old white man who agrees with her
Do we really think this is going to make people flock to collegiate track meets??
You agree with which part of the non-sequitor?
hahahaha wrote:
Hilariously, we see Lewis' Law in play on this very thread:
The comments on articles about feminism justify feminism.
People criticized Sheila for attributing this change and subsequent disagreement with others to old white men, when it has nothing to do with old white men, whilst noting that this sort of attribution of blame (to men, old people and / or white people) is common among third wave feminists. And your claim is that this justifies feminism?
Run through that one more time for me please. And no straw manning in your response. Thanks.
Good post. When you immediately get called Bobby Riggs for disagreeing with someone, their argument isn't on solid footing.
rojo wrote:
Reid wrote, "While the mile might be significant for men (sub-4) there is no such significance for women. This isn't marketability it's male nostalgia."
1) I think the tweet is absurd. Somehow trying to make this sexist. The 4 minute mile is a very famous barrier in sports - maybe the most famous. It has nothing to do with sex.
2) I disagree with the assertion that a mile means nothing for a woman. People in America relate to minutes per mile. When the run a 5k or 5 miler, they don't have splits ever 1500. They have splits ever mile. Oh I run at 8:30 mile pace. No one says, I run at 8:10 1500 pace. So even if a woman runs a 4:30 mile, it's easier for the average person on the street to relate to that than it is to relate to a 4:10 1500.
3) A 4:00 1500 is a more marketable story for a woman than 4:20 mile - maybe. I'm fine if the women want to stay at 1500 but please don't make this be the result of some sexist plot.
How stupid can you be? someone points out that women were ignored in the context of a decision (oh and this phenomena extends outside the realm of sport too) and your first response is to deduce her argument to some anti-male agenda. Did you consider that she may actually have a valid point and that you're just too stupid to comprehend it?
The reality is the ramification of said decision on female competitors was either never discussed or secondary to the marketability of the men's mile and the allure of the 4-minute barrier. That tends to happens when the people making the decision comprise mostly of one demographic ("old white males") who are out of touch with the consideration of others. Don't get me started on how that same demographic occupies 80% of coaching and positions of power, it must be because they work harder for it and deserve it.
I circular filed your counter-argument IMMEDIATELY after your first sentence.
Your first counter-argument is to call the person you disagree with names?
That's like FIRST on the list of intellectually dishonest debate tactics.
Rojo 1-- You --0
return your ivy degree wrote:
The reality is the ramification of said decision on female competitors was either never discussed or secondary to the marketability of the men's mile and the allure of the 4-minute barrier.
That's because there are no negative ramifications to women. There are literally none. Despite desperately digging not one compelling argument has been given for why women are disadvantaged by this decision.
return your ivy degree wrote:
How stupid can you be? someone points out that women were ignored in the context of a decision (oh and this phenomena extends outside the realm of sport too)
How were women ignored?
The proposed change was put to a vote. Coaches listened to the pitch, considered it, then voted.
Unless you have personally asked all of the coaches that voted whether they considered how the change would affect women, then your claim is baseless.
return your ivy degree wrote:
and your first response is to deduce her argument to some anti-male agenda.
Her argument is anti-male. From her twitter:
"This isn't marketability it's male nostalgia."
If you're not picking up on it, I'll explain:
male = bad
return your ivy degree wrote:
Did you consider that she may actually have a valid point and that you're just too stupid to comprehend it?
Did you consider that Rojo did consider her argument and simply disagreed?
Nope.
You attribute his disagreement to him "being too stupid to comprehend it"
return your ivy degree wrote:
The reality is the ramification of said decision on female competitors was either never discussed
What ramifications? Running an extra 109 meters?
How do you know that coaches didn't consider or discuss this?
You don't.
return your ivy degree wrote:
or secondary to the marketability of the men's mile and the allure of the 4-minute barrier.
Again, what relevant ramifications are being held secondary to the above?
You haven't given any.
return your ivy degree wrote:
That tends to happens when the people making the decision comprise mostly of one demographic ("old white males") who are out of touch with the consideration of others.
Annnnnnnd there it is. Again.
Fvck men.
Fvck old people.
Fvck white people.
Membership to the above categories invalidates arguments said members make. If said member disagrees with one who isn't a member of one or more of the above categories, said member is wrong. In cases of disagreement between members, the member who is a male or old is wrong.
return your ivy degree wrote:
Don't get me started on how that same demographic occupies 80% of coaching and positions of power
Please do.
return your ivy degree wrote:
it must be because they work harder for it and deserve it.
Alternative explanation: More men try to become coaches than women.
Nahhhh, it's that patriarchy.
Sheila is just mad HS girls will now send her home devastated.