Running alone is not the problem

I saw well-meaning "advice" in the newspaper this week that women should buddy up for runs for safety.

F*** that.

The problem is not women running alone.

The problem is that drunk-driving teens shouldn't have thrown a beer bottle at me from their speeding car.
The problem is that drivers shouldn't blow through stop signs.
The problem is that a creeper shouldn't have approached my friend, asking for "directions," and tried to lure her into a canyon.

Don't get me wrong.
I love my running buddies.
But I shouldn't *need* them for safety. And I'm tired of being told I should.

Women already, disproportionately, select their routes and running times based on avoiding the threat that someone might harass or attack them. That's a disgraceful commentary on our society. The blame-the-victim (she shouldn't have been running alone, with headphones, before dawn, etc...) mindset puts it on the runner if someone attacks her.

F*** that. She had the right to run.
Alone.
The attacker does not have the right to attack. The harasser does not have the right to harass.

Runner's World has it right on this.
http://www.runnersworld.com/running-while-female

Source: Runner's World Survey

Keep your opinion to yourself

I've been quietly not blogging the last few months because, well, with the standard DC-area 2+ hour round-trip commute, a full-time job, and a toddler, I have time to work, parent, run, eat, and (not) sleep... Any remaining time in the day is needed for other adult things like doing laundry, cooking, reading books, and hanging upside down from the monkey bars at the playground!

But this week I need to write, or my brain won't stop working around this irritation like my tongue works around a popcorn kernel stuck in my teeth.

In my running community, looking for a long run buddy this weekend, I posted this:

Anyone interested in 8-10 miles on Sunday morning, 9:30 pace? I was thinking Saturday, but hubs might be going to yoga, so Sunday works better.

What I received in response was the expected: Sure, but slower/faster/how early/late?
(And yes, I found a running-buddy.)
(And yes... BTW... I'm back to a 9:30 pace for 8+ miles! WOOT!!!!!)

What I also received in response was a totally un-expected:

So, your husband's yoga takes priority over your run?

WTF?!?

I'm actually shaking with anger as I re-type those words.
So passive-aggressive.
So judgmental.
So TOTALLY OFF THE MARK.

The comment makes me angry on many levels.

I don't know - have never run with - the person who made that incredibly intrusive and judgmental comment. She doesn't know me, or that I'm a died-in-the-wool feminist and not the least bit a pushover. She doesn't know my husband, and that he's incredibly supportive and not a bully.

In truth, my spouse gives me hours every weekend to run, shower, and refuel. Aside from an occasional nap, he rarely asks for time to himself. Why WOULDN'T I be respectful and give him some time for his own fitness and health? That sort of give-and-take, my dear critic, is what a healthy relationship looks like.

But WHY SHOULD I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO A TOTAL STRANGER?!?!

Why should anyone assume that a wife is being a pushover, instead of being a loving and supportive spouse who's giving back the kind of respect she gets?

Why should anyone assume that a husband is being a pushy asshole, instead of making a rare request for some stress-relief/fitness time?

And WHY... for the love of god... should anyone think it's their right to comment EVEN IF it was an argument in our house. It's our effing house. Keep your passive-aggressive ass out of it!

Gender, Jenner, and equity in sports

In all of the media hubbub over Caitlyn Jenner's Vanity Fair cover, it occurred to me that one issue that has barely made a ripple: will Jenner's Olympic medal be stripped?

The IOC said, in short and with little fanfare or media coverage, of course not.

Jon Stewart skewered the media frenzy over Jenner's appearance, noting that when Jenner was "a man" [sic] people talked about Jenner's athletic achievements, but now (out as a woman)... looks are the only thing that matters to the media. Critics of Stewart's criticism note that Jenner was always a woman. But in 1976, Jenner competed in men's events - as Bruce - in the Montreal Olympics.

Now, before we go any farther, I want to state clearly and for the record that I truly believe Jenner deserves to keep the Olympic medal. I concur wholeheartedly with the IOC decision. (But I do quibble with the IOC verbage that Jenner "won his" medal. The proper language now would be "won her," and there was really no need to use a gender pronoun at all. Better text would be "Jenner won the gold medal..." end of story. But I digress...)

What irks me actually has nothing to do with Caitlyn Jenner at ALL.

What irks me is how this "of course the record stands" non-issue highlights the flagrant gender double standard applied to female athletes.

South African track star Caster Semenya was at the center of a gender identity firestorm that all but ruined her life when blood tests revealed elevated testosterone levels. She was subjected to humiliating, and ultimately nonsensical, tests to determine whether or not she "really was a woman" and thus allowed to compete in female events. She has now been cleared to race in women's events and will be back on the track for competitions this summer, but not without enduring years of struggle related to her gender identity.

And even more puzzling is that Paula Radcliffe had her marathon world record rescinded by the IAAF, retroactively, merely because she ran in a race in which men were also running. That ruling was later overturned, but only after months of public pressure (including complaints from giant corporations like Nike) against the IAAF. And the women-only rule applies forevermore in future marathons. So... girls only get a world record if they're running with other girls.

So... Jenner, a transgender woman, gets to keep an Olympic medal won in a men's event. Great. Jenner got to choose, compete, and keep a hard-won medal. Bravo!

Meanwhile cisgender women are subjected to ridiculous and unreliable testing (which can be misleading, inconclusive, or can simply highlight somewhat rare and shocking genetic traits that were previously unknown to the competitor) and unequitable standards (men get to race with "rabbits," but women can't, etc...) to determine their competitive status?

Sex (biological characteristics) and gender (psychological and social ones) are part of a continuum that involves lots of grey area in the middle. There are chromosomal, hormonal, physiological, psychological, and emotional factors that do not always fall neatly within XX and XY binary. Moreover, while much of the theory behind gender "testing" has been to "level the playing field," it seems the burden of proof falls mainly on women.

Perhaps it's time do do away with "men's" and "women's" events completely?

Maybe women should start playing in Major League Baseball?

Merge the NBA and WNBA?

Add an ultra-distance event to Olympic track and field, because distance levels the playing field among runners?

Make male gymnasts compete in the balance beam and women in pommel horse?

I don't claim to have the answers, but I think it's time to start a discussion about what athletic gender categories really mean... if anything at all.

Gender mind bender

In my teaching gig, I get to talk about all of the taboo topics: sex, drugs, racism, religion, politics, gender issues... You name it. If it's not an acceptable topic of conversation in polite company, it probably comes up in my class. As you can imagine, controversy is inevitable...

This week is gender week.

We talk about media portrayal of gender roles.

We talk about the fact that women weren't allowed to run the Olympic marathon until 1984 (nineteen eighty effing four!) for fear that they'd destroy their uteri or die on the course.

We talk about the fact that gender stereotypes are bad for men, too. (Full disclosure: I'm human-ist, not femin-ist. The ridiculous modern belief that boys can't sit still in class and aren't good at communication is every bit as harmful a stereotype as "girls are bad at math." If you think I'm making this up, see research by Steele and Ambady, among others...)

We talk about the gender wage gap (which is far more complicated than just "discrimination"). And this reminds me that in the past year, while discussing the variety of possible causes for the gender wage gap, one of my students said:

"Isn't the gap just a reflection of men's and women's differences? Women just can't do what men do. They get tired easier. They just don't have the endurance."

A shocked and angry little part of me wanted to shout back: "Oh yeah? Grab your running shoes. Let's take this outside and see who has more endurance." (There may have been some cussing in my inner monologue as well, but you get the idea...)

I also wanted to argue that women regularly survive 20+ hours of labor. If that's not endurance, I don't know what is.

But being offended just plays into the "women are emotional and irrational" stereotype.

Instead I took a deep breath and lectured on the very real evidence that women are, in fact, excellent endurance athletes. I pointed to the shrinking gap in male and female marathon world record times, and the fact that women often win ultra-distance races.

I reminded the class that, most importantly, we shouldn't assume "average" means "all."

Women, on average, have lower muscle mass and higher body fat percentage than men. As a result, we've segregated our athletic endeavors and awards systems. We tend to think of women as gymnasts and men as weigh lifters.

But sometimes people buck the trend in spectacular fashion. Consider Billie Jean King, Ann Trason, and now world-class weight lifter Sarah Robles. Robles outranks any American weightlifter (man or woman).

Saying women just "can't" be good athletes demeans very real athletic skill and ability, just as saying men "can't" collaborate and communicate demeans very real interpersonal skill and ability.

Whenever this challenge comes up, as it invariably does from at least a handful of students, it leaves me wondering:

When will we, as a culture, start accepting personal talent on a personal level, and stop leveling stereotype accusations at one another?

Maybe someday...

Until then, I'm going to keep running even though, apparently, I'm not supposed to have the endurance to run those long distances. Because, you know, I'm a girl.

Run like a girl (the real Alysia Montaño quote)

The US Olympic Trials have captivated the attention of more than one American. (I can say that with certainty because Hubby + me = 2, which is definitely more than 1.)

In my case, the Trials have given me a new hero in the running world: Alysia Montaño.

In about 45 seconds of post-race interview, after winning the women's 800 to qualify for the 2012 US Olympic team, Montaño summed up everything that "you run like a girl" really means.

Image source

“The flower is.. to me, means strength with femininity. I think that a lot of people say things like 'you run like a girl.' That doesn't mean that you have to run soft or you have to run dainty. It means that you're strong. We are the givers of life."
Alysia Montaño (after winning the women's 800 meter race to qualify for the 2012 US Olympic team)

(For the record, most news agencies have botched the quote. I spent time today transcribing it from the post-race interview video.)

Happy Birthday Title IX

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972

On June 23, 1972 Title IX was passed by Congress, and on July 1 Richard Nixon signed the law that ensured equal funding for men's and women's educational activities, including (and probably most well known) sports.

Today, with women enrolling in college at higher rates than their male peers, we may wonder why such a law was ever needed. So let's not forget why the rule was written in the first place...

Prior to the passage of Title IX:

• Many schools prohibited female students from enrolling in "male" classes like auto mechanics and criminal justice.
• Male students were not allowed to take home economics.
• Most medical schools limited the number of women admitted to 15 or fewer, as did law schools.
• Double 1964 Olympic gold medal winner, swimmer Donna de Varona, was not eligible for college swimming scholarships. For women those scholarships did not exist.
• In a 1971 ruling that prohibited a female cross country runner from joining her high school's team, a New Haven Superior Court Judge was quoted as saying "Athletic competition builds character in our boys. We do not need that kind of character in our girls."
• In 1967 a Boston Marathon race official tried to wrestle Katherine Switzer off the course because women were not allowed to run.

Today we are not surprised to learn that more than half of finishers in road races are women (53%, according to 2010 statistics from Running USA), but it wasn't until 1984 that women were allowed to run the marathon in the Olympics. (Surely Flanagan, Davila, and Goucher are glad that rule changed before they entered kindergarten, but it did change after our 2012 Olympic marathon team was born.)

Granted, after forty years of legal protection, participation is still not even across all sports. According to the NCAA Gender Equity Report 2004-2010, almost no women play football and almost no men play field hockey. But the playing field is more level than it ever was, and for that, I say:

Happy Birthday Title IX

Image source

Only boys want go outside

During a recent layover in Atlanta, I decided to while away the hours by browsing magazine racks.

Maybe I had too much time on my hands between flights, or maybe I've been teaching Sociology too long, but I was taken aback by what I saw in the "boy" and "girl" sections.

Now I could rant about segregating reading material by gender. (Really, why can't we group health/fitness or sports/recreation together for all genders, the way business magazines are paired? Boys do yoga. Why should they have to get "yoga journal" from the girl section?) But that's another discussion for another time.

Today I'll just admit that I know Maxim is going to be grouped in with "boy" magazines, and Cosmo will be in the "girl" section. Similarly, if we're going to divide print material along gender lines, I expect to see "Men's Health" and "Women's Health" on opposite walls.

But when did Runner's World become a dude's domain?

"Men's Interest"

And, according to this selection, men get "Outside" and "Bicycling," too. (See bottom row in photo, above.)

"Woman's Interest"

Women get (cough) "beauty" and home decoration magazines. (And I've already noted how I feel about the glossy images of beauty and perfection in those pages.)

Now, to be fair, I've read plenty of Oprah's magazines. But I've also had a subscription to Runner's World for more years than I can count. And in an airport, I'm just as likely to pick up Outside magazine as I am to grab Fine Cooking or Real Simple.

Plus, no matter where you put 'em, I'm not going to read "Traditional Home" or "House Beautiful." I'm a nomadic renter who moves every couple of years. The pile of dirty shoes by my front door is proof that my home is merely a staging ground for outdoor adventures.

I walked out without a purchase.


What magazine do you look for when you're traveling? And would you be miffed if your favorite magazine was stocked for the opposite gender?

Potluck (and other short stories)

Welcome, friends, to another Friday potluck!


Food for thought:
Bored with stress eating? Try grief bacon.
Thanks to Nitmos at Feet Meet Street for filling us in on the German word, Kummerspeck, composed of Kummer (grief) and Speck (bacon) which means "excess weight gained due to emotional overeating."

I might need some of that grief bacon to get over  the news that sexism is still alive and well in 2012. Case in point: the baseball team at Our Lady of Sorrows Academy in Arizona forfeited their state championship game because the opposing team includes a girl player.

Image source

Yes, folks: you read that correctly. OLSA would rather lose a state championship by forfeit than play when a girl is on the field. Way to teach our children good values about sportsmanship and equity, OLSA!

Don't the coaches know that girls don't really have cooties?

Losers.
(literally)


A moveable feast:

Image source

Check those bike tires! Next week is Bike to Work Week.

Many communities sponsor special cycling events, including contests and giveaways. Check the list to see if your city is promoting pedal power.

Speaking of travel, have you ever wanted to take a cross-country trip, but couldn't convince your friends to join you? Sarah Von explains how to road trip solo.


Words of wisdom (aka quote of the week):

If you can’t fly then run, if you can’t run then walk, if you can’t walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Link love:
Instead of closing with a question, today I'd like to use the comments section to find other weird and wonderful stories. So...

Please post a link to the best article you read (or wrote) this week.
(Don't be shy - if you wrote something great, share it!)

Katherine the Great (a nod to Boston)

The year: 1967

The person: Katherine Switzer

The event: The first woman registers for, and completes, the Boston Marathon at a time when women were banned from the course. (She registered as "K.V. Switzer.")

The scandal: The event organizer, Jock Semple, tried to pull Switzer from the course, yelling "Get the hell out of my race!"

Image source

So... Happy 116th birthday to the Boston Marathon.

Happy 45th anniversary to K.V. Switzer's epic run.

And happy 40th anniversary of the first Boston Marathon that didn't chase women off the course. Thanks to that change in rules, today 43 percent of entrants are female.

Watch her interview with PBS here:

Watch Kathrine Switzer on PBS. See more from Makers: Women Who Make America.

My (personal) favorite quote from the interview:

"I'm gonna' finish this race on my hands and my knees if I have to... Because nobody believes that I can do this, and suddenly I realize, you know, if I don't finish this race, then everybody is going to believe women can't do it and that they don't deserve to be here and that they're incapable."

It wasn't until 1984 that women were (finally) allowed to run the marathon in the Olympics. That rule was changed in response to the lobbying work of Katherine and others.

Thank you Katherine!

Aren't you glad we no longer need bodyguards to run?

Girls on the Run - interview

Today I'm skipping a traditional blog post, and asking you to pop over to Examiner.com to read my article on the non-profit Girls on the Run.

Image source

I had the good fortune to interview the local council director about the program, which teaches young girls about self respect, healthy lifestyle, and fitness while preparing the girls to run (or walk) a 5k.
In her words...

"Girls on the Run is a program that uses running and training for a 5K to teach girls about self- image, respect, and community awareness. The program works to instill a power within girls to be themselves and to not worry about what others think. The creator of the program speaks of getting out of the “girl box” where a girl may feel like she is not good enough, not pretty enough, not smart enough, or not cool enough – and to be proud of who she already is by valuing herself just as she is..."

This message is doubly important given the shocking statistics on childhood obesity (rates have tripled in 30 years so now one in five children is obese) and photoshopped media messages that distort body image.

Oh, and GOTR is always looking for volunteers...

To see if there is a council in your community, or to get involved, visit the GOTR website.

Racing pretty

Each semester in the course I teach, I cover a segment on gender roles. We review the ways in which women's images are photoshopped beyond all reasonableness to make them appear flawless.

Not a pore or blemish to be found!

Beyonce's skin color varies depending on which magazine she's in:

A few of Beyonce's most famous photoshopped images.

Katie Couric drops two dress sizes with the click of a mouse.

Such an amazing weight loss seems almost impossible!
Oh wait. It is impossible. (Image source)

And the most famous Kardashian is touched up to remove all traces of cellulite.

To put the blame where it belongs, I should be clear that these photo edits are often made without the model's knowledge. (PS - Bravo to Kim. When the media started a feeding frenzy over the un-edited photo, Ms. Kardashian replied with: "So what: I have a little cellulite. What curvy girl doesn’t!?")

There are so many examples of photo-editing gone awry that Jezebel.com has a whole "photoshop of horrors" documenting the most egregious cases. Models' waists are trimmed to the point that - if they were real - they'd snap in half in a strong wind storm. Legs are slimmed so that they are thinner than arms (or in some cases, removed completely). Wrinkles vanish. Blemishes are zapped.

And it's not just women. On men, muscles are added. Skin tone is enhanced... Even Brad Pitt is not immune:

Pitt's legs are narrower than his neck in this denim ad!

All of these practices set up an unrealistic ideal that people are supposed to be impossibly thin, tanned (but not too tan), and freckle-free. Certainly we can't be seen with a splotchy red face or sweat-matted hair.

The media is full of these impossible images, so I am never at a loss for fresh content for class.

And just as I was putting together material for this semester, I read The Boring Runner's blog post on his favorite glamour-shot race photos.

So I decided to post one of my most realistic race photos.
Just to set the record straight. This is NOT what I look like after a run:

Source: google.com via Laurie on Pinterest

This IS what I look like at mile 12 of a half marathon:

Not a glamorous photo, to be sure.
In fact, my comment to Hubby was "no way THAT one is going on the blog!"

But it makes me smile. Because I know how hard I worked to get there.
And now that photo is also my electronic middle finger to the photo-editors of the world who think people are "prettier" when they're fake.

Have you seen photoshop horrors?
Do you have any others to share?
Are you proud or embarrassed of your "worst" race photos?

Nike takes a stand

I have a hate/love relationship with Nike. Their history of sweatshop labor* is enough to make the most stoic person cringe. But I have to hand it to them: Their marketing is nothing short of brilliant.

A new "You can change the rules, but you can't change history" ad on the Nike Running Facebook page has gone viral. Given my none-too-subtle stance on the IAAF ruling -- both the initial world record rule change and the subsequent retroactive rule application, which stripped Paula Radcliffe of her 2:15 marathon world record -- it would be impossible for me to not love this ad.

I think this replaces Nike's 2005 "Thunder Thighs" ad as my all-time favorite PR piece.



*According to Businessweek, in 2004 Nike implemented a system of factory inspections, which does not solve the sweatshop labor problems, but is a step in the right direction.

Sexist new rules

This morning I learned that the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF), the record-tracking agency for all things running, just ruled that only:

"World Records for women to be recognised in women only races. The IAAF shall keep a separate list of “World Best Performances” achieved in mixed Road Races.”

Their logic: women run faster in co-ed races, so those should not count toward record setting. (So by this logic all marathons should be run on closed courses with no hydration support or cheering crowds, right?)

According to Running Times, the only issue remaining to be decided is

whether the rule will be applied retroactively. USATF’s Glenn Latimer seems to think so, and that Joan Benoit’s 2:24:52 at the 1984 Olympics will become the American record. In this case, note also that Paula Radcliffe’s 2:15:25 would no longer be the world record, as she had male pacemakers during that race (as did Deena Kastor when she ran 2:19:36). The Road Race Commission member also thinks existing records set in mixed races will be thrown out.

I have never heard anything so sexist or ridiculous in the running world.

Tracy, over at Go, Tracy, Go! wrote a much more eloquent analysis than I can right now. (I'm almost too mad to type.) So for more details, please see: Tracy's post.

Am I overreacting, or is this ruling unfair?

Image courtesy of digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In case you haven't seen it yet

In case you haven't seen it yet, this is JCPenny's idea of back-to-school fashion for girls still too young to try out for a spot on next season's 16 and Pregnant.

Yes, folks. You read that correctly. The shirt says: "I'm too pretty to do homework. So my brother has to do it for me."

Excuse me while I hurl.

After public outcry, the shirts have been pulled from store shelves. But seriously, how does this sort of train wreck happen?

Don't get me wrong: I have a sense of humor. (Um... hello. Read the blog title.) I am not on an anti-attractiveness campaign. (Seriously. I have a closet full of dresses, for when I'm not wearing running clothes, and I am a pedicure junkie.) But, as Cordelia Fine documents so thoroughly in Delusions of Gender, studies repeatedly show that gender priming results in real, measurable decreases in academic and athletic performance among women who would otherwise be smart and strong.

Is this really the message we want to broadcast to our little girls???

My how far we have come

When I was born, the marathon was still a men-only event in the Olympics (and no, I'm not that old!) In the era of Title IX it is difficult to remember that less than a generation ago, women were not grated equal access to sports (not to mention certain educational or occupational opportunities). Improvements in gender equity since the 1960s have been rapid, but the effects of gender discrimination linger in subtle ways.

I recently stumbled across this reminder of how much our sport has changed in the past thirty years:

Not until 1984 in Los Angeles would the women's marathon become a sanctioned Olympic event. Joan Benoit Samuelson, the winner, had attended high school in Maine, where women's track teams were not granted varsity status during her freshman and sophomore years. She won the 1975 state championship in the mile -- the longest distance a woman was allowed to run -- but because she insisted on practicing with the boys to improve her times, she was denied the school's most valuable athlete award. "That's when I said to myself, 'I'll show that coach -- I'm going to win an Olympic medal some day,' " Samuelson says. Nine years later she did.
NY Times (1996)

When I read that, I pumped my fist in the air and yelled "Go Joan!" (My cat, who was napping on my desk, was not pleased...)

I highly recommend reading the entire Times article. The piece is now 15 years old, written for the Atlanta Olympics, but is a timeless history of the challenges women have faced just to be able to be runners. If they had not pushed the boundaries of gender, would we be runners today?

One of the most common excuses for excluding women running was that our bodies "couldn't handle it," and that were not as ______ as men (insert "strong," "fast," "smart," "tough," or any number of other adjectives here).

But are women really weaker or slower than men?

Or did they just get a late start?

Today's marathon world record, still held by Paula Radcliffe from the 2003 London Marathon, represents a pace that is equivalent to the fastest man on earth in the early 1960s. And while men's marathon times have remained (from a statistical perspective) roughly stable over the last century, dropping from 2:55 in 1909 to 2:03:59 in 2006, women's times have seen rapid improvement.

Today the differential in men's and women's paces can be measured in seconds per mile, not minutes.

In 1980 only 10 percent of marathon runners were female. In 2009 the proportion reached 41 percent (data from Running USA). The share of women running in shorter races has risen even faster. In the half-marathon distance, women became the majority of runners in 2005.

And, perhaps most interestingly, women who enter ultra-marathons have a substantially higher likelihood of completing the race than male entrants do.

So it is entirely possible that women can be just as fast as men, but got a late start in this game. Granted, there are runners who make a strong argument to the contrary by suggesting that over the last couple of decades the disparity in paces between men and women has remained roughly constant both in the marathon and in other distances.

This is one case where only time will tell.

And I'll keep this in mind next time I'm at the track doing a speed workout.


Chart data source: http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/ data compiled by author