She's right, this is a goofy move by out of touch old dudes who think it'll make a difference. If you want to "save" the sport (which doesn't need saving), make real changes, not gimmicks. Gimmicky crap like this just signals that you don't have any ideas.
Also, pretty funny that anyone thinks her tweet is "ghetto talk". Speaking of out of touch old dudes...
Most actually prefer it a little longer.
She knows she wouldn't have been able to run that extra 109.34ish meters in a race.
thinker tinker wrote:
Speaker of Hard Truths wrote:No kidding.
"I'm trying to even but cannot rn"
"old, white dudes are draining my energy rn"
Ugh. One of the very MOST annoying thing about the current "oppression warriors" is their half-smirking use of black ghetto language and culture. Blacks don't call them on this usage as long as they have a common enemy: ol' whitey (males only..er, usually).
I also find it hilarious when lily-white women seek solidarity and praise from minority "oppression warriors" by joining them in the attack on white males. It's like Sheila is expecting a "you go, girl" after a little snippy tweet.
I wonder what her old white parents think of folks like her.
What part of what she said is "black ghetto language and culture"?
some person wrote:
The answer is so simple, however. Let the women keep their 1500m - Barringer is the only Collegiate to have broken 4 minutes - and let the men have their mile. As Reid states, this thread is typical of the mysogynistic attitude promoted by the Brojo's (Rojo you are the worst, feel sorry for your wife - the really pathetic part is that you don't even realize it, in fact would likely pretend, and defend that pretense vigorously, that you aren't), that don't even value the input of women. If you asked the Collegiate women, they would overwhelmingly prefer the 1500m - that is what she means by the old white men. It is a paternalistic attitude that "we" (the men) know what is best for women. Typical BS, maybe Caitlyn Jenner is right, men are pigs.
You are correct about one thing. I do protest vigorously. How do we promote a mysogynistic attitude?
I'd claim just the opposite. Reid is a smart person. She made a provocative / thought provoking comment. I'm letting her be criticized and praised for such comment. I don't feel that a woman needs to be protected. Please don't say it's because we let people make comments on her looks. Go look at the Mike Rossi thread. Tons of people are talking about his looks there as well.
I actually feel that much of Reid's comment is brilliant. The switch to the mile likely would put a little more emphasis on the men's mile than the women's simply due to the sub-4 aspect of it. I don't think most men would even think about that. However, I don't think it's male nostalgia. Women running fans also I'd assume enjoy a sub-4 mile.
Ho Hum wrote:
She's right, this is a goofy move by out of touch old dudes who think it'll make a difference. If you want to "save" the sport (which doesn't need saving), make real changes, not gimmicks. Gimmicky crap like this just signals that you don't have any ideas.
Also, pretty funny that anyone thinks her tweet is "ghetto talk". Speaking of out of touch old dudes...
+1
Just read her Tweets. She is awesome and totally right. Sub-4:00/Mile means NOTHING to Women or Girls. Not a single college girl cares. Not a single high school girl cares. Get out and focus group some female runners and post the video on LRC. You will be embarrassed.
Right on! Angry white racist old men are nostalgic for the days of imperialism - colonization, slavery, and domination thanks to dangerous masculinity. And what more offensive way to celebrate that than with an offensive IMPERIAL unit of measurement - the mile.
The sub-4:00 mile is an unfair flaunting of the privilege only enjoyed by the upper 99.99%. It is archaic and oppressive to those who have been left out of the discussion and deleted from history merely for not having the benefit of a few masculine-partiarchal gene fragments.
SLOW LIVES MATTER!
SLM wrote:
The sub-4:00 mile is an unfair flaunting of the privilege only enjoyed by the upper 99.99%. It is archaic and oppressive to those who have been left out of the discussion and deleted from history merely for not having the benefit of a few masculine-partiarchal gene fragments.
SLOW LIVES MATTER!
POD candidate
Whoa a lot of overreaction and outright dickheadedness here in this thread.
Gotta love the righteous indignation tied to an issue with zero relevance to 99% of the world's population. Let's stop acting like this is an issue anyone should or does care about deeply. Running for a living is a privilege only an evolved and prosperous society can support. What value does running contribute to the greater societal good beyond entertainment?
krispy kremlin_._._ wrote:
josp wrote:No female in the NCAA has ever broken 4 minutes so that's a worthless barrier in this discussion.
I'll venture a solution that will no doubt get me called all manners of nasty names: the mile is not a even, clean number (1609m) so why not come up with a distance under 1500m, say 1470m, that would create an adequately difficult distance for women to attempt sub four minute effort. Go through history and calculate a distance that would create a proportional amount of sub women as there are sub four men with a participation factor included. Call it the "women's track mile" or something better.
Instead of destroying what men have, try creating something for women. Granted, I'm sure people that don't exist in reality will have something pissy to say about that too.
The idea of going to 1500m on gender-based time issues is crazy. It's a "I can't have it so you can't either" attitude.
I hope Sheila well when I don't have a horse in the race but this attitude is so bigoted and leaves me less of a fan.
You are just pissed because she's faster than you and you can't stand that.
Cold Hard Truth Bringer: wrote:
She's annoying and irrelevant, cute dimples though. After college she just sorta fell off horribly.
Can't handle the last 109 meters!
self righteous letsrunners wrote:
You are just pissed because she's faster than you and you can't stand that.
Typical liberal smokescreen. Obviously a logical rebuttal doesn't exist.
krispy is pretty quick, I wouldn't be surprised if he's faster than Sheila but who cares?
Limousine Liberals wrote:
self righteous letsrunners wrote:You are just pissed because she's faster than you and you can't stand that.
Typical liberal smokescreen. Obviously a logical rebuttal doesn't exist.
krispy is pretty quick, I wouldn't be surprised if he's faster than Sheila but who cares?
just a shill for the brojos
1.Fiona BENSON CAN '92 4:05.62 1161 PB
2.Ciara MAGEEAN IRL '92 4:06.54 1153 PB
3.Sheila REID CAN '89 4:09.75 1128
On October 23, she tweeted about how she bragged to some guy what her mile time was.
You can't make this sh-t up.
Raysism wrote:
On October 23, she tweeted about how she bragged to some guy what her mile time was.
You can't make this sh-t up.
LOL
Maybe Sheila wants women to be able to hide behind the 4:00 barrier. As long as the men and women's winning times are on the same side of 4:00 the difference in time is a bit forgotten. But when the men are running low 3:50s and the women are above 4:20 (2 women broke 4:20 last year) the difference seems more noticeable because it crosses the 4:00 line. Women want the perception that they are as capable as men athletically when in fact, it aint happening. Look at the outrage of Gilbert Arenas' stupid remark. Sure he's an idiot, but, the WNBA is 20 years old now and still can't run without the NBA's backing. The leagues best player just sat out last season to rest for her real money season in Russia (I think it's Russia).
Women want the perception of equality, running sub-4 1500 provides that, because sub-4 resonates in old white guys memories.