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.

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?

Reframing eating disorders as a personal choice?

On a recent essay assignment, one of my students clued me in to a new term: "pro-ana."

The term, shockingly, is short for pro-anorexia.

I am aware that eating disorders exist, and that mass media plays a none-too-subtle role in reinforcing body image issues. In fact, that was the topic of the essay assignment (and to be clear, my student was reporting on the phenomenon, not encouraging it). But as I stared at the page, I wondered how anyone could reframe an eating disorder as a good thing? *shudder*

Image source

Pro-ana? Not only is there a cute-sounding term to describe this disordered behavior, the topic has gained a cult following on the interwebs. The Huffington Post provides a detailed analysis in their recent article "The Hunger Blogs." I would highly recommend that you read the article in full, but if you are short on time, here are some of the most shocking quotes from pro-ana bloggers interviewed for the story (note: thinspo = "thinspiration"):

Sixteen-year-old Antonia (last name withheld) also runs a popular, photo-based thinspo blog out of her bedroom. "I like images that show skinny, happy girls," she writes in an email to the Huffington Post. "They look so confident and we can see their bones through their skin. It's the most beautiful thing ever. I also like tips about food or how to ignore hunger."

And this one...

It documents addictive and compulsive behavior, yet masks this behavior in the rhetoric of self-control and willpower ("Your stomach isn't grumbling, it's applauding").

Keep in mind that this next quote is from a girl who started modeling in ninth grade:

"[Modeling and fashion] was one of the original reasons I started looking at thinspo," she says. "I had an interview with a very, very tough agent in ninth grade and they told me that they would be happy to represent me because of my height and my facial structure. But they wanted me to lose 25 pounds. I wasn't overweight at the time -- I was probably average for my height. It was a big shock for me and that's what really pushed me in the direction [of pro-ana]."

And this is where my jaw dropped...

"They say, 'You know, this is my lifestyle -- I live an extremely low-calorie lifestyle and this is my choice,'" says Pascoe. "And what goes along with that is all sorts of personality traits that they're very proud of. They have an extreme amount of self-control, dedication and willpower. And when they talk about it, they seem like these extreme athletes who run a hundred miles in a shot or do these 24-hour races.”

To be clear, I am not a 24-hour runner, but I do work out nearly every day. On Tuesdays I will sometimes run twice a day 2-fer-Tuesday style... But I fuel appropriately. I take time off when my body needs a rest. Frankly, I am in shock that anyone with a serious eating disorder would compare my running with their illness, because:

Running. Won't. Kill. Me.

Ana Carolina Reston, fashion supermodel who died from her eating disorder, is just the most famous example of an extremely debilitating lifestyle. She was 5'8" and weighed 88 pounds when she died of multiple organ failure due to anorexia.

A modeling photo of the late Ms. Reston.
Image source

At the time, Ms. Reston was still modeling.

So. Eating disorders can kill.

But what about running? Isn't it possible to have a heart attack while running a marathon?
Sure (though the likelihood varies based on underlying conditions). Isn't it bad for your knees? No. But that's another post for another time...

Yes, runners can be slim and dedicated to the point of distraction. (And yes, there are people who have a disordered relationship with working out - similar to and often linked with an eating disorder.) But here's the difference: Not all runners will die from running.

In fact, most will live longer because of running.

(note: you see abs, not ribs, on Shalane)
Image source

On the other hand, eating disorders do - in no uncertain terms - cause serious physical harm and can lead to death.

Having the willpower to complete the last hill repeat in a series is not the same thing as starving yourself for a 50-day anorexic bootcamp, aka the "ABC diet," that limits caloric intake to 500 calories or less per day! (If you don't believe me, skip to page 3 of the Huff Post article).

Glamorizing starvation in terms that reframes it as willpower is just plain wrong.


What are your thoughts/comments on this issue?

Ruling overturned!

Breaking news!
Paula Radcliffe gets to keep her 2003 world record!

Runners worldwide expressed their disgust at the IAAF ruling that women's marathon records would only count in women-only races. That raised a few eyebrows, to say the least. (Ok. It elicited a string of cuss words from this blogger much like those generated when I dislocated my finger playing football with Hubby...)

But the IAAF really put their foot in it when they made the ruling retroactive, stripping Paula Radcliffe of her 2003 world record for a 2:15:25 finish at the London Marathon. There was outrage in the running community. Nike even got in on the protest.

For those of you new to this story, the backlash centers around the fact that the ruling didn't outlaw pace-setters overall, just a particular woman-running-with-man combination. For example, Patrick Makau's blistering 2:03:28 new world record, set in Berlin earlier this year, involved not one but SIX pace-setters to help him to his goal. From the NY Times story:

In the Berlin men’s race, six pacemakers formed a V-shaped formation, leading a pack of five elite runners as if they were migrating geese. They stayed on record pace the entire race, with the lead group going through halfway in 1:01:43.

But in Makau's case, the pacers were men running with men, so according to the IAAF, that still counts toward world record status. When it was a male pacer running with Radcliffe, that violated some girls and boys can't play together rule.

Hence: outrage.

But, to give (some) credit...

The IAAF listened.

According to news from the Associated Press, Paula Radcliffe gets to keep her 2003 world record.

The IAAF is now trying to figure out exactly how to set the standard for future world records.

What do you think about the initial rule and the changes?

Photo courtesy of Nationaal Archief (with edits made by yours truly)

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.

Radcliffe record changed

About two weeks ago I wrote about sexist new rules approved by the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF). The new rules only allow women's running world records to "count" if they are run in women-only races. The only question remaining at that time was whether or not the rules would be retroactive.

That decision has now been made, and, indeed, the rules are going to be applied retroactively. According to today's report on ESPN:

For full story, see ESPN.co.uk

"Under new rules passed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), Radcliffe's 2003 mark of two hours, 15 minutes and 25 seconds is no longer valid as a world record because it was run in a mixed environment. 

The new rules, designed to discourage male pacemakers from helping women to achieve quicker times, means that Radcliffe's mark, set at the 2003 London Marathon is no longer a women's world record, but a world best. Her 2005 London time of 2:17:42 has been upgraded to the world record."

And just to prove how controversial this ruling is, two major world marathon organizations, World Major Marathons (WMM) and the Association of International Marathons (AIMS), threw their combined weight against the ruling, stating in a joint letter:

"The Boards of both WMM and AIMS have reviewed the recent Congress decision and believe that it does not represent what is required by the sport of road running...They further believe that there should be two world records for women's road running performances, separately recognising those achieved in mixed competition and women's only conditions...AIMS and WMM will continue to acknowledge both types of performances as world records and will discuss this matter further with the IAAF, recognising that the vast majority of women's road races throughout the world are held in mixed conditions..."

And perhaps the most telling line from the letter:

"The current situation where the fastest time is not now recognised as a record is confusing and unfair and does not respect the history of our sport."

But unless the ruling is overturned, the women's fastest marathon time drops back to Radcliffe's 2:17 (in 2005), not her much faster 2:15 (in 2003).

100th blog post

Today I've reached one of the critical blogger milestones: the 100th post.

I fretted over what to write, since this post seems momentous. (But then again, it is really just like every other post...) Should I write something reflective? Should I gush about the blogger community? Should I write a retrospective on all the years I've been running, or how much my life has changed (or not) in the past 100 posts?

In honor of this special occasion, and in the spirit of keeping things simple, I decided to take a brief look back at the blog so far.

Superlatives, flops, and things I've learned:
The (surprisingly) most popular post so far has been my book review of Bad Shoes and the Women Who Love Them. The popularity of this post is, at least in part, thanks to Pete at Runblogger, who Stumbled the post and has been generating regular traffic ever since. (Thanks Runblogger!)

The second most popular is Running in the Buff... Don't even get me started about the weird search terms that have generated traffic for that post. The popularity of Running in the Buff made me wonder if I should start blogging about nudity more often. (It generates traffic!) But seriously, I've seen Avenue Q. I should not have been surprised by the search results.

(Viewer caution: The Avenue Q video contains no nudity, but is NSFW)

The post that I had the most fun writing, but flopped royally, was Spitting Mad (about running etiquette, especially not spitting on your fellow runners). I expected at least a few "eww gross" comments, but instead got silence. *crickets chirping* Then again, Yes, Folks. I Run Like A Girl was only a baby blog then. Even my family wasn't reading it yet. (I do wonder if Spitting Mad would get more traction today?)

The most controversial post, by far, was Sexist New Rules (about the swap to women's world records now only counting in women-only races). This post blew up into a raging debate on my facebook wall, with dozens of comments on both sides of the argument. To everyone's credit, the debate was heated but civil.

My thanks to all who have been reading along with me so far. I look forward to sharing the next 100 (miles and posts) with you!

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