Not retired yet: Shalane Flanagan is Running the 2018 NYC Marathon

NERunner053 wrote:

+1000

I don't get how this website doesn't see that they are, in fact, alienating women and people of color. The reality is that when Rupp announced Chicago, these boards were talking about who he was gonna face and what time he might run. There wasn't a conversation about how he'll do in Chicago because he has small children at home.

Shalane announces her fall marathon and Rojo is the one who gets the discussion about kids going. And LRC still thinks they don't need training on race and gender and that they have the skills to decide what to allow and what goes too far. There is more to talk about when it comes to female athletes if they have kids or if they are going to have kids and how that affects training. This does not happen to male athletes in the same way.

Hmm I don't recall Rupp saying that putting off a family due to running was one of his biggest regrets.

vivalarepublica wrote:

BSigme wrote:

https://twitter.com/erinstrout/status/1029816240091459584

Publicly responding to message board chatter is a zero sum game.

???

Could be because most male runners don't grow a miniature human inside their bodies for 9 months, arduously push it into the world, then take time to recalibrate a body that suddenly lacks said human before getting back to serious training. Seems like a reasonable ingredient to throw into the stew if the whole point is wondering which races an athlete will run.

In this case, Rojo acknowledged that, upon finding out Shalane did NOT want to go through this process, the child-rearing question became a non-issue. The argument since then has not so much been about how kids will affect Flanagan as it has been about whether or not discussing female athletes' maternal aspirations is reasonable in any situation.

Sad and sorry post. This is not a "woman thing"

Well, I don't like you, I do not share your sentiments, opinions and values. So what? Are you going to file a complaint, or, god forbid, a lawsuit? Chances are that if I were to meet your wife, when she was not engaged, I would turn around within 2 sentence conversation, and forget about her. As I said, it's a free world (at least that's what you 'mericans like to think and that's what your are fed by your "free" media), and humans in the majority of the world can choose their mates on the basis of mutual attraction that includes also shared values, common upbringing, traditions and mutual respect. Changing a name is the least a wife can do for a man, at least to show a good will and commitment. A man can do thousands other things and gestures for a woman. It's called relationship which comprises lots of sacrifices and compromises. This is just a small gesture. If you disagree, fine, you found the right mate, good for you.

I won't say f**ck your values, because I don't care what you value, and I don't force my values upon you. See the difference, you "feminist"? Ah, those liberal fighters. Oxymorone much?

ojojkljlkjk wrote:

Hello 21st Century wrote:

Or the men behind Desi, Amy, Kara, and Deena weren't confident enough to let a woman decide what the hell name she wants.

Or Desi, Amy, Kara, and Deena wanted to change last names when they married.....

These days chicks can always split the difference and be hypenators. But not taking the guys last name shows a lack of commitment to the marriage and calls out for a prenup unless as in this case, she earns more than he.