Showing posts with label women running. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women running. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 26

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.)

Saturday, June 23

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

Tuesday, June 5

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?

Monday, April 16

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:


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?

Monday, April 9

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.

Tuesday, March 27

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?

Monday, March 12

Monday motivation (from the archives)

Thanks to Kathy for posting this this Nike commercial with Joan Benoit (Samuelson).
What an inspiration...



What's motivating you this week?

Friday, February 10

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?

Thursday, January 19

Do Shalane and Kara really get along?

Do Shalane and Kara get along, or do they secretly hate each other?

This video interview attempts uncover the real answer:


(funniest thing I've seen on the interwebs in weeks!)

Saturday, November 12

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)

Friday, September 30

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.

Wednesday, September 21

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).

Wednesday, September 7

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

Friday, September 2

Bad hair day

In her efforts to battle the obesity epidemic by encouraging Americans to exercise more, Dr. Regina Benjamin, Surgeon General of the United States was quoted as saying:
“Oftentimes you get women saying, ‘I can’t exercise today because I don’t want to sweat my hair back or get my hair wet,’ ...When you’re starting to exercise, you look for reasons not to, and sometimes the hair is one of those reasons.”

So, first question: Is she right? She's talking about exercise newbies, but have you, dedicated exercisers, ever skipped or postponed a workout for the sake of your hairstyle?

And second question: If this is an "excuse" women are using, does this matter enough to warrant comment by the Surgeon General?

Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress

Saturday, August 13

Book review on the run: Wonder Girl

In 1932 a lone woman won an entire track and field meet, beating the reigning national champs, who fielded a team of 22 against her. That woman set five world records in the process.

That woman was known by many names during her life: Mildred Ella Didriksen/Didrikson/Zaharias, but was most commonly called "Babe."


In late June, I first heard about Babe Didrikson thanks to an NPR story and helpful friend who made sure I heard the NPR story. In early August my book club selected Wonder Girl: The Magnificent Sporting Life of Babe Didrikson Zaharias, by Don Van Natta Jr., as our book of the month.

I finished most of the book on a recent flight, and have been struggling to write a review that does the story justice.

Despite teaching Sociology, and understanding the finer points of gender inequality, I found myself aghast at the breathtaking gender stereotypes Babe faced in building her athletic career. For example, I am aware that women were barred from the Olympic marathon until 1984. However, I was not aware (until reading this book) that the level of gender disparity was so stark that one of the founding fathers of the modern Olympics (Baron Pierre de Coubertin) is quoted as saying:
"The Olympic Games must be reserved for men" and the winners should look forward to "female applause as their reward." Women competing in sports "violated the laws of nature"... a sweating female athlete was "the most unaesthetic sight human eyes could contemplate."
By 1912 women were permitted to participate in a few events (though several were only exhibition events), such as figure skating and gymnastics, because these sports were "ladylike activities and aesthetically pleasing."

(Gag!)

Fortunately for Babe, by the time the 1932 Olympics rolled around in Los Angeles, the rules about female competition had been relaxed somewhat. She won two golds and one silver in track and field events. (The silver medal was for a tie in the high jump. The record was later changed to reflect the tie for first place.)

Unfortunately for Babe, public sentiment at the time was still extremely gender biased. Many sports writers attacked her personally and publicly for her athletic abilities. Joe Williams, of the New York World-Telegram wrote that:
...many male high school athletes could have easily beaten her in Los Angeles... "in athletics women didn't belong"... and "it would be much better if she and her ilk stayed at home, got themselves prettied up and waited for the phone to ring."
(Is it just me, or does Joe sound jealous?)

The part about high school boys stings, in particular, because it wasn't true. But what reader at the time would know that? And Williams wasn't alone in his criticism of Babe's womanhood. Many writers piled on with unflattering physical descriptions of the Olympic medalist, and insinuations that she wasn't "much interested in boys."

(Can't a girl catch a break?)

To be honest, in reading this book, there are times when the author suggests that Babe lived up to her rought-and-tumble reputation. In fact, if there is anything I finally tired of in the book, it was reading over... and over... and over again... that Babe was a pushy, loud, and aggressive competitor. (Particularly in her early golf-playing years.) By about two thirds of the way through the book, I wanted to throw up my hands and yell "enough already! I get it!"

Despite the fact that the author, Van Natta, is seemingly trying to shed light on the gender inequality Babe faced, he seems to fall into the same trap of focusing on the "indelicate" aspects of Babe's personality. Maybe the historical records focus exclusively on Babe's tough demeanor in the 1930s and early 1940s, but there is plenty of evidence that she took good care of her parents and siblings (financially and personally) and that she had close friends. The beginning and end of the book are nicely balanced, but the middle threatens to mire down the whole book.

That said, the end of the book brings us back around to a balanced story.

And what runner girl doesn't want to read about a woman who was named Woman Athlete of the Year SIX TIMES by the Associated Press -- a feat no other woman or man has ever matched.

Saturday, July 9

Book review on the run: Bad Shoes & The Women Who Love Them

Given the barefoot running craze, I thought it would be interesting to explore the other side of the sartorial spectrum. I picked up Bad Shoes & The Women Who Love Them and devoured the book in a single flight.

I was fascinated by the chapters on foot physiology and the damage constant high-heel wear does to tendons and calf muscles. But I have to admit that I was not pleased by the utterly bizzare chapter on the Freudian sexuality of feet (chapter 6). If you read the book, you'll know what I mean. I was scratching my head, wondering "Where is she going with this?" But then again, I've never been a fan of Freud's theories.

Freud aside, this book was well researched and well written. The author, Leora Tanenbaum, is not a bra-burning extremeist. Rather, she suggests that we should treat our heels like candy - reserving them for special occasions, instead of indulging all day every day. Because just like too much candy is bad for our health, long term high-heel wearing can have some deleterious effects including (gross out alert!) bunions, corns, shortened tendons, and a host of other problems - all of which (not incidentally) are bad for runners.

I gave up my heels a few years ago (except for a recent calf-strain incident, in which wearing heels allowed me to walk without having to painfully flex my foot). My fancy, pinchy, pretty-heeled shoes were noticeably affecting my running. So out they went!

This book made me feel better about my choice to swap my stilettos out for sandals and ballet flats for everyday wear. The best quote:
The practice (of wearing heels) proves that one is able to handle pain and exert a sense of control and discipline over her body, demonstrating a perverse kind of strength.
The sociologist in me recalls all the times I have listened to women (myself included) talk about how our heels make us feel powerful, sexy, and strong. Heck, there's even a new song titled "Hell On Heels" by the Pistol Annies.

But when it comes right down to it, I'd rather feel strong running 400s at the track.


If you enjoyed this post, you might also like my review of Wonder Girl: The Magnificent Sporting Life of Babe Didrikson Zaharias.


Photo courtesy of: The State Library of New South Wales

Monday, June 27

A real Babe

A very kind friend passed the story of Babe Didrikson along to me, so I feel it's my responsibility to pay it forward.

Babe was a human dynamo of female athletic ability at a time when the most exercise a woman got was dancing The Charleston or washing her family's clothes.


With Babe Didrikson's story, I was hooked by the second paragraph. (The audio is pretty good, too.)
In the 1920s and 30s, Babe Didrikson proved a girl could be a phenomenal all-around athlete. After mastering basketball and track and field, she eventually turned to golf — and won three U.S. Women's Open championships before she died of cancer when she was only 45....

Even though Babe wasn't concerned with the gender and class issues of the time, she soon learned that women were not supposed to play sports, and she would have to get a job with a business to play professionally for their team.

So Babe left high school to work...

She single-handedly won five track and field events (broad jump, baseball throw, shot put, javelin, and 80-meter hurdles) within three hours and qualified for three Olympic events: the 80-meter hurdles, high jump, and javelin.

But yet she still was taunted in the press for being too "manly." Some implied that she was an athlete because she couldn't "get a man." (As if!)

(We runners today are a lucky bunch that our sport has changed so much in the past 100 years.)

Now this is my kind of athlete story! How is it that I had never heard of this woman before today? We all know about Babe Ruth from the same era. Why not Babe Didrikson? She has all the makings of a superstar: Superior talent. Overcoming discrimination. And, sadly, a tragic early death. But yet I'd be surprised if anyone knew about her before the new book Wonder Girl hit the bookstores (and ensuing book tour blitz began).

Saturday, June 25

Just a reminder...

Today's blog post is all about using the gift of endurance to help others.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, today two sisters begin a 363 mile trek along the Oregon coast to raise funds and awareness for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA).

GOOD LUCK HOLLY AND LORI!

You can follow their journey through their blog.

For more information on how to donate to Court Appointed Special Advocates (a non-profit 501(c)(3)) visit the sister's donation page, or go directly to:
Essex County CASA http://www.casaessex.org/twosisters.aspx
OR
Voices for Children (San Diego) http://voices4children.ejoinme.org/363miles

Saturday, June 18

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

Monday, June 13

MWF runner seeks partner for long runs on the trails...

I started my new life on the Florida Panhandle about six months ago, but have made little progress in terms of finding new running buddies. Not that I haven't tried. I feel like Goldilocks, but looking for "just right" has been tougher than Miss G made it seem.

I tried the local pub run: Too little socializing, and too many people half-assing it just to get the beer discount.

So I tried the local ladies' run: Too girlie, even for me. And I love everything about being a female runner. I just don't want to run wearing a tiara. I don't care whose birthday it is. I think their enthusiasm is awesome - the same way I think it is awesome when a couple runs a marathon dressed as Fred and Wilma Flintstone... but that doesn't mean I want to dress up, too.

Next I looked up one of the local hash run groups: Too raunchy, even for me. (And I drop the f-bomb ALL THE TIME... but, seriously, replacing the word "come" with "cum" on a website is not that clever.) And they didn't reply to emails anyway. (Yes, I am getting that desperate!)

In a last-ditch effort, I replied to an ad on Craigslist for someone else who is looking for a running buddy. We'll see what happens. This will either be the start of a beautiful new running adventure, or it won't, or the person is a serial killer.

So if I don't post for awhile...

But seriously, if I do meet up with this runner I'll do all the smart things: meet in a public place, make sure hubby knows where I am and what time I'll be home, use a fake name, carry a taser.

So my question tonight is: When did finding a running partner start to feel like online dating? (And where can a girl get a taser?)


Author's update February 2012: There is a second hash run group in town, and they were just right.