She was once a runner

Well, I actually agree that everyone should earn their scholarship. I don't want her to receive money because she is female. She has been taught to work hard and leave an impression every time she competes. Trust me when I tell you her work ethic is admired by many. You might be able to argue about her athletic ability but not the way she works. She has risen to the highest level in four sports and I say it's because of her work ethic. Now I can't say the same for most other female athletes that I know but not really most of the males that I know either. I guess I want everyone to earn scholarships or it seems like it weakens the meaning.

know your role wrote:

They are all weak-minded individuals who likely have/had inattentive or ignorant parents or at the very least a negatively influencing peer/colleague/mentor. Anyone who knows that they are hurting their body and does so regardless has been raised poorly in some fashion. It is sick and sad for any cohort, male/female, young/old, but more for the roots behind it than the actual acts.

what BS. Some people, including myself, develop eating disorders despite having been raised by wonderful parents. They are complicated disorders and each case is unique. "Anyone who knows that they are hurting their body and does so regardless" wasn't necessarily raised poorly; rather, they are struggling to cope in a healthy fashion. Maladaptive coping mechanism. Blaming parents for EDs is no longer in fashion.

How is your marriage working out? And, how does your wife like being pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen popping out babies and gathering while you hunt?

News flash. It's 2011, not 1950. Women outnumber men in the medical field. Most women work. Sports are as important for women as they are for men. We may have the handicap of boobs and hips, but women still manage to do well. And, guess what? Running WAS my identity in high school, and it was for many of my teammates, too. I look at what sports did for my overall drive and character development, and talk to my mom, who had basically volleyball or cheerleading as her only opportunities. She reminds me of how lucky I am. She did not start running until age 40 (or do ANY sports before that) and ran her first marathon at age 45.

I hope for your sake that you don't have a daughter. Or, maybe it would be better that you did have one, one who is athletically minded, and it might change your thoughts on women's athletics in general.

NO, not all girls want to play with barbies or cheerlead. I am as feminine and heterosexual as they come, and I always found my brother's transformers to be more interesting than dolls or ponies. I saw him play T-ball, and a year later I played T-ball. I was lucky to have a great dad who was equally committed to my sports as he was to my brother's. He coached both softball and baseball and came to every track and cross-country meet that I can remember.

The whole hunter/gather argument is antiquated. We do not live in that type of society anymore. Our society has evolved; we have evolved. Women have changed to fill new roles. *Most* men have evolved in their thinking, too. (But, apparently some have not.)

Whatever team she was on had to have been a major force. In one of the early posts she says the top three girls could run mile repeats on grass at 5-minute pace. With reasonable assumptions about rest and number of reps, that would mean they have three girls that could run AT LEAST 16:00 on a track, probably closer to the 15:40 range. How many teams have three of those at once? Looking at TFRRS, Villanova has the fastest 3rd girl in the nation, Alison Smith at 16:08 (I'm giving Reid credit for faster than her 16:13, which was run in a championship race). So this team was at least stronger through three than the current Villanova squad.

Wow, very interesting read. I'm a female runner at a D1 school and our team is absolutely nothing like that. We have great relations and I know the women on the team will be people I will be friends with for a lifetime.

This is because for females, their focus is not sport, and reasonably so. To young girls, there are more important things than sport, and this is why they should not be rewarded for their sporting efforts in an equivalent manner.

For many young men, sport is what they live and breathe. How many young girls can you say live that lifestyle? Yes, girls put on fat consistently after puberty, because they are NOT BIOCHEMICALLY DESIGNED FOR SPORT. Many are exceedingly successful at sport, which is great for them, but they are engineered to produce viable children and maintain family stasis, whereas males were engineered to hunt and gather. To counter your point, how do the gender related changes during adolescence make them deserve it more??? If anything, it weakens the playing field, making it SIGNIFICANTLY harder for even skilled males to succeed.

Boy not better than girl. Girl smart. Boy strong. Girl thoughtful. Boy impulsive. It's really that simple.

NOT BIOCHEMICALLY DESIGNED FOR SPORT. hmmm... This post actually made me laugh it was so stupid. Where are you getting your data on how and what men and women were "biochemically engineered" to do? I'm a med student, so sorry, but I need hard data rather than some rando on the internet's arbitrary athropological theory to believe something like that.

It is hilarious to think that as I do my daily run along a highly populated running path and roll guy after guy that I'm just not biochemically engineered to run like them. what makes me smoke 98% of men in road races? fairy dust? I know on average men are a lot faster, but you are kidding yourself to think there aren't a TON of girls out there who live and die for their sport, and who are dang good at it too. Please go watch Tirunesh Dibaba run and tell me she isn't "biochemically engineered" to do that.

oh and the "girl smart, boy strong" line? NOT that simple. take a look around, dude

Nutella1 wrote:

yo yo whatup wrote:

as has been alluded to previously in this thread: MALES HAVE EATING DISORDERS TOO

it is just spoken about less

Because it happens a lot less.

It may happen less, but that's not the reason it's spoken about less. The reason is that men are less whiny and less likely to blame others for their own condition.

A man looks at eating disorder as something a guy is doing to himself and should just snap out of it: what's to talk about?

While women feel like an eating disorder is something fostered upon them by society at large and therefore they are victims and society needs to do something to heal them: lots to talk about.

halfwit wrote:

Funny, because the womens team is on scholarship at this girls school and the men aren't so that would make me think that people care MORE about the women.

The women have scholarships so that the football team can have more scholarships without having to add another womens' team. Even when the women have an advantage over the men in scholarships, it's only so a men's team more important than all the runners combined can stay funded.

If I spend time hanging out with a mentally challenged kid with a hot sister, it's not because I enjoy spending time with the kid, it's because I want to nail his sister.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

For those of you who don't "understand" women, let me make it simple for you. We are intuitive and emotionally driven. This is seen as being weak, and it can be, but if we have our heads screwed on straight and are emotionally healthy, we thrive. This can be applied in all areas of a woman's life. Something for men to think about when complaining about post-nuptial shut-offs, having clingy girlfriends, etc. Or in this case, coaching female athletes.

When talking about men versus women, being intuitive and emotionally driven is connected with being "healthy, and thriving." When men don't tap into the mystical force of intuition and emotion, they get shut off, women cling, etc.

Can you name ONE OTHER arena where you can make this assertion, legitimately? Science? Engineering? Law? Medicine? Please, name one serious academic discipline where intuition and emotion are respected over logic and reason, and I will gladly stop blaming women for post-nuptial shutoff and being clingy, and look to men for a solution.

Until that time, I will continue to blame women for their emotionality, and their refusal to listen to reason when it doesn't suit them. We don't have problems with women because we don't understand them, we have problems because we do understand them and they don't operate in a manner consistent with what society at large understands as the cornerstone of legitimate thought.

TK1451 wrote:

Whatever team she was on had to have been a major force. In one of the early posts she says the top three girls could run mile repeats on grass at 5-minute pace. With reasonable assumptions about rest and number of reps, that would mean they have three girls that could run AT LEAST 16:00 on a track, probably closer to the 15:40 range. How many teams have three of those at once? Looking at TFRRS, Villanova has the fastest 3rd girl in the nation, Alison Smith at 16:08 (I'm giving Reid credit for faster than her 16:13, which was run in a championship race). So this team was at least stronger through three than the current Villanova squad.

Given the environment, it wouldn't surprise me if the girls running 5:00 pace on grass in workouts were running much slower in races. We're not necessarily looking at a team full of 16 flatters here...

news flash...it's 2011. wrote:

The whole hunter/gather argument is antiquated. We do not live in that type of society anymore. Our society has evolved; we have evolved. Women have changed to fill new roles. *Most* men have evolved in their thinking, too. (But, apparently some have not.)

Actually, our society has evolved, but we haven't; that's the crux of the issue. We haven't had to. Women have changed roles, but most research indicates that women are actually less happy now than they were decades ago, because as much as women have taken up more of the burden of the working world, men haven't really taken on more responsibilities at home; they don't care, and they're happy to let their wives pull double duty. Women care more, and will thus continue to do more, and the more they heap on their plate the more the men can sit back and enjoy the view. Women will gain more power but more misery as well. Men will lose power, but lose much more responsibility.

I am a male and I admit to having an eating disorder. I restrict my calories and eat small amounts of low-calorie foods like salad. I have wanted to stop this process for a long time now, but can't bring myself to do it. I want to look/feel/be thin. Can someone who has dealt with this issue as a runner please provide me with coping mechanisms or strategies to end this dangerous cycle?

Thank you in advance for genuine advice,

Struggling male with eating disorder

TK1451 wrote:

Whatever team she was on had to have been a major force. In one of the early posts she says the top three girls could run mile repeats on grass at 5-minute pace. With reasonable assumptions about rest and number of reps

Stanford has had at least one team like this.

Christopher Poole wrote:

The women have scholarships so that the football team can have more scholarships without having to add another womens' team. Even when the women have an advantage over the men in scholarships, it's only so a men's team more important than all the runners combined can stay funded.

What a whiny little pussy you are.

Almost certain this is Boston College. Figured it was a college in New England...I initially thought Providence College, but no mens scholarships is a HUGE clue. Ivy covered buildings; private school; cemetry across from campus; college is close to (not in) a major city.

Can you say Chestnut Hill?

Did BC's home course include playing fields?

Pre-Nats was on a golf course (Terre Haute is not a golf course) in a warmer clime...where was Nats before Indiana State/Terre Haute? When was it last run at Furman GC?

If Coach = Randy Thomas....is Asst. Coach Leslie = Kathy Franey? Did Kathy ever coach at BC?

The author is not a New Englander, but not from the sunbelt either. Hot & humid in August = midwest, but I'm thinking DC area (remember Mom & Dad drove up for 1st race of season). Is it a reasonable drive from DC to Boston?

First, we need to narrow down where Pre-Nats was...last time on a GC, and in warmer weather.

Finally, am I obsessing much??????

I agree with all of this....I think this may be the 2001 BC team...Maria Cicero a fast (and skinny) freshman. Danielle Jelley was the 4th runner on the BC team at their opening meet and ran relatively poorly at Pre-Nats.

That year Pre-Nats was at Furman...a golf course.

Someone with access to this website's stat log visited my website from Westbury, New York today.

According to below quote from a 1996 article about her Millrose victory, Franey was an assistant at BC:

"Franey's mile was one of the most joyous performances of the meet's 89th renewal. The former Villanova runner, who is now the women's track coach at Boston College, delighted a crowd of 15,471....."

Franey finished 6 in the 1500 at thw 1996 Olympic trials. Fits the narrative.