How about Teva? Does anyone want to boycott this company?
Sharron Davies leads boycott of Nike.
Other Running Related Topic
-
00
-
Nike does not care about 50 running forumers boycotting them lol
12 -
RunRagged wrote:
This again? wrote:
You write about racism and then use a phrase like "gender jihadis", a phrase with obvious racist overtones.
I stand by all those words. Sharron Davies is being plain nasty. You didn't answer my question about which other trans people would be acceptable ambassadors. I think you would treat all trans women working for Nike in the same way.
So called liberal opponents of trans rights like Davies or JK Rowling will be embarrassed by their own views in 20 years. Once the pendulum swings back in favor of acceptance, they will try and weasel their way back and forget the extent they hated this group of people.
Jihad is an Arabic-origin word now used in many languages that means struggle - which can be an internal spiritual struggle and a peaceful struggle against self and others - as well as armed and violent struggle against those perceived to be enemies of Islam, or enemies one's own cause generally.
"Gender jihadi" is a shorthand term for today's militant, misogynistic gender-identity activists who want to make everyone in the world buckle to their will, obey their rules, agree with their views, and show allegiance to their reality-denying, totally unscientific, male-supremacist, faith-based ideology - an ideology that is very much like a religion - and who will use lies, propaganda, manipulation, cancelling, threats of violence, actual violence and terror tactics to do so.
The activists I am speaking of are the ones who say that women who defend our rights, safety and dignity like me, Sharron Davies and JK Rowling are all evil "cxnts" who should be raped, punched, stabbed, beheaded, burnt to death, and forced to suck "girl dxck."
Islam is a religion that has adherents of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, skin colors, hair types, native languages...I personally know people who are Muslim, or were raised Muslim, who are pretty much every race, ethnicity, hue, hair type, geographic heritage, language tradition, etc imaginable. They and their families come from Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malyasia, Turkey, the Levant and North Africa, Somalia, Sudan, West Africa, Eastern Europe, the countries that once made up Yugolsavia, the former USSR...
Which race exactly am I being racist towards by using the term "gender jihad"?
If I called today's militiant trans activists "gender-identity crusaders," would you accuse me of being racist against Europeans? How about calling them "the rainbow guard" or "red guard redux" - is that racist againt Chinese people?
"Pastel stormtroopers" and "Butler youth"- are those names racist against Germans?
What about "gender terrorists"? That anodyne enough for you?
As for your question about which trans-identified people would make good brand ambassadors for Nike: I don't know, and I don't much care. Though if I had to choose someone, I'd go with Buck Angel.
But Buck shouldn't be brand ambassador not for sports bras, because Buck's breasts were surgically removed decades ago. Similarly, it would be inappropriate if Buck were made brand ambassador for erectile dysfunction medications or did PSAs about prostate cancer.
In your rush to mount your high horse and slag off women like Sharron Davies, JK Rowling and me as "plain nasty" - and now as haters and weasels too - you fail to notice that women like Sharron Davies and I are not objecting to trans-identified people being brand ambassadors for Nike in general or other products. Davies and I aren't up in arms about Mulvaney shilling for Budweiser, for example.
Women - the female kind - and the men who support us are objecting to the specific instance in which Dylan Mulvaney, a MAN - and a MAN who makes his living mocking women and girls - has been made a paid brand ambassador speficially for Nike sports bras and leggings that are supposed to be designed to meet the unique bodily needs of female people. (We object to Mulvaney and his creepy friend Jeffrey Marsh doing paid promotions for Tampax and other menstrual products too.)
If Dylan Mulvaney were a brand ambassador for generic products not specific to the female sex - corn flakes or mouth wash, say - I'd have no problem with it. Just as I'd have no problem with Mulvaney shilling for Nike men's wear, Bike jock straps, Shock Doctor athletic cups, Adidas groin guards, Under Armor Boxerjocks, Calvin Klein men's briefs, Trojan condoms, Gold Bond Men's Essentials, Happy Nuts anti-ball-sweat chafing powder, Pete & Pedro's Body & Balls powder, Fresh Balls lotion, and so on, I'd have no problem with it.
You sure use a lot of words to say "I'm scared of something I don't understand even though it can't hurt me". That's ok, cavemen were also afraid of fire for a long time.
33 -
Saw that Leo Young posted Aaron Sahlman winning the Arcadia 800 on IG. That's nice to see given the static between Aaron and the Young Bros.
10 -
This again? wrote:
NikeBurning wrote:
Yes.
You don't like that a trans woman that you've never heard of is selling a product that you don't use on a website that you're not on?
Ok then.
yah i mean i guess he decided if they're going to use the revenue generated from their overpriced gear to sponsor some dude prancing around like a fairy rather than a female athlete just because he pretends to be a woman he's done buying their trash gear... seems reasonable
21 -
This again? wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
Jihad is an Arabic-origin word now used in many languages that means struggle - which can be an internal spiritual struggle and a peaceful struggle against self and others - as well as armed and violent struggle against those perceived to be enemies of Islam, or enemies one's own cause generally.
"Gender jihadi" is a shorthand term for today's militant, misogynistic gender-identity activists who want to make everyone in the world buckle to their will, obey their rules, agree with their views, and show allegiance to their reality-denying, totally unscientific, male-supremacist, faith-based ideology - an ideology that is very much like a religion - and who will use lies, propaganda, manipulation, cancelling, threats of violence, actual violence and terror tactics to do so.
The activists I am speaking of are the ones who say that women who defend our rights, safety and dignity like me, Sharron Davies and JK Rowling are all evil "cxnts" who should be raped, punched, stabbed, beheaded, burnt to death, and forced to suck "girl dxck."
Islam is a religion that has adherents of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, skin colors, hair types, native languages...I personally know people who are Muslim, or were raised Muslim, who are pretty much every race, ethnicity, hue, hair type, geographic heritage, language tradition, etc imaginable. They and their families come from Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malyasia, Turkey, the Levant and North Africa, Somalia, Sudan, West Africa, Eastern Europe, the countries that once made up Yugolsavia, the former USSR...
Which race exactly am I being racist towards by using the term "gender jihad"?
If I called today's militiant trans activists "gender-identity crusaders," would you accuse me of being racist against Europeans? How about calling them "the rainbow guard" or "red guard redux" - is that racist againt Chinese people?
"Pastel stormtroopers" and "Butler youth"- are those names racist against Germans?
What about "gender terrorists"? That anodyne enough for you?
As for your question about which trans-identified people would make good brand ambassadors for Nike: I don't know, and I don't much care. Though if I had to choose someone, I'd go with Buck Angel.
But Buck shouldn't be brand ambassador not for sports bras, because Buck's breasts were surgically removed decades ago. Similarly, it would be inappropriate if Buck were made brand ambassador for erectile dysfunction medications or did PSAs about prostate cancer.
In your rush to mount your high horse and slag off women like Sharron Davies, JK Rowling and me as "plain nasty" - and now as haters and weasels too - you fail to notice that women like Sharron Davies and I are not objecting to trans-identified people being brand ambassadors for Nike in general or other products. Davies and I aren't up in arms about Mulvaney shilling for Budweiser, for example.
Women - the female kind - and the men who support us are objecting to the specific instance in which Dylan Mulvaney, a MAN - and a MAN who makes his living mocking women and girls - has been made a paid brand ambassador speficially for Nike sports bras and leggings that are supposed to be designed to meet the unique bodily needs of female people. (We object to Mulvaney and his creepy friend Jeffrey Marsh doing paid promotions for Tampax and other menstrual products too.)
If Dylan Mulvaney were a brand ambassador for generic products not specific to the female sex - corn flakes or mouth wash, say - I'd have no problem with it. Just as I'd have no problem with Mulvaney shilling for Nike men's wear, Bike jock straps, Shock Doctor athletic cups, Adidas groin guards, Under Armor Boxerjocks, Calvin Klein men's briefs, Trojan condoms, Gold Bond Men's Essentials, Happy Nuts anti-ball-sweat chafing powder, Pete & Pedro's Body & Balls powder, Fresh Balls lotion, and so on, I'd have no problem with it.
As you well know, jihad is a contentious phrase associated with islam. It has entered western consciousness erroneously to mean islamic extremism. As you've explained you've plucked the word to mean exactly this.
I don't want to go into this too deep but prejudice towards islam is inextricably tied up with race. Ask any sikh or hindu how many times they've been abused because a person has assumed they are muslim. To a racist, islam is just the most notable 'brown religion'.
There's another thread on here about Bud Light employing Mulvaney. Kid Rock shot up a pack of beer because of it. What's the difference? You think one is more principled than the other? It sounds like you're on a high horse thinking you are better than the people arguing for the EXACT same thing as you.
Prejudice towards Islam and Muslims is only inextricably tied up with race in the minds of racists who don't know much about Islam, Muslims, world history or geography - and who don't know and haven't met/seen many Muslims.
To you, Islam might be a a "brown religion." But the reality is that people who are Muslim, or were raised Muslim, are all races, ethnicities and hues. Same goes for Christians.
Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion whose founders and early followers had skin, eye and hair colors and other characteristics that have come to be associated with race that were very similar to the people who started Islam some centuries later. Today, there are probably as many Christians around the world whose skin is various shades of brown and black as Muslims. But the racists whose ignorant views you give credence to, and seem to think everyone should pay deference to, don't regard Christianity as" a brown religion." Funny that.
BTW, people who speak English use terms that originally came from other language traditions and certain faiths all the time in anodyne ways that aren't casting aspersions on the original sources of those terms. . Someone who says "gun ownership rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment are the sacred cow of Americans on the right" is not expressing prejudice and disdain for Hindus and Hinduism. Just as someone who says "that's not kosher" or "that's a shibboleth" is not expressing disrepect for Jews and Judaism.
Also, this seems to be lost on you, but there's a difference between being critical of a religion and being prejudiced towards the people who follow or believe in it. Being critical of the Abrahamic religions, for example, doesn't mean having animus or disrespect for all the people in the world who are, or were raised to be, Jewish, Christian and Muslim.
Similarly, the fact that Sharron Davis, JK Rowling, and many others strongly disagree with - and totally reject - the tenets of the Church of Genderology that you apparently adhere to doesn't mean we hate everyone who "identifies as" as trans. Nor does it mean we have contempt for all the people who have decided to build their "identities" and lives around the regressively sexist sex stereotypes that constitute gender the way today's genderflecters have decided to do.
Women like me don't object to Dylan Mulvaney and his behavior because he supposedly has adopted a so-called trans identity or because we are aligned with good ol' boys like Kid Rock. We object to Mulvaney and the act he's currently putting on because he's a privileged, pampered man who is getting rich and famous from doing a public performance that consists of him ridiculing and showing utter contempt for the female half of the human race.
And we object to to him being chosen to promote sports bras and exercise wear that are supposed to be designed for people with female bodies. Nor only does Mulvaney not have a female body, or breasts that need to special support to protect them from damage during exercise, but he has chosen to publicly mock those of us who do have female bodies by making fun of, and expressing disdain for, our female body parts and showing horror and disgust for our female bodily processes.
Day after day for the "entertainment" of millions, Dylan Mulvaney uses his position of "white male privilege" to put down and punch down on people who are of a different sex to him and are below him in social status. He does this by performing womanface as a schitck in the same mean-spirited, hateful, arrogant way that white racists in minstrel shows of yore once did blackface.
Many women - the female kind, not the male imposters who call themselves women that you appear to prioritize - object to Dylan Mulvaney's antics because the main product he's promoting is misogyny. And by backing him and using him to promote women's wear, Nike is giving Mulvaney's misogyny its stamp of approval and promoting it too.
74 -
gsueueheueeu wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
Jihad is an Arabic-origin word now used in many languages that means struggle - which can be an internal spiritual struggle and a peaceful struggle against self and others - as well as armed and violent struggle against those perceived to be enemies of Islam, or enemies one's own cause generally.
"Gender jihadi" is a shorthand term for today's militant, misogynistic gender-identity activists who want to make everyone in the world buckle to their will, obey their rules, agree with their views, and show allegiance to their reality-denying, totally unscientific, male-supremacist, faith-based ideology - an ideology that is very much like a religion - and who will use lies, propaganda, manipulation, cancelling, threats of violence, actual violence and terror tactics to do so.
The activists I am speaking of are the ones who say that women who defend our rights, safety and dignity like me, Sharron Davies and JK Rowling are all evil "cxnts" who should be raped, punched, stabbed, beheaded, burnt to death, and forced to suck "girl dxck."
Islam is a religion that has adherents of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, skin colors, hair types, native languages...I personally know people who are Muslim, or were raised Muslim, who are pretty much every race, ethnicity, hue, hair type, geographic heritage, language tradition, etc imaginable. They and their families come from Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malyasia, Turkey, the Levant and North Africa, Somalia, Sudan, West Africa, Eastern Europe, the countries that once made up Yugolsavia, the former USSR...
Which race exactly am I being racist towards by using the term "gender jihad"?
If I called today's militiant trans activists "gender-identity crusaders," would you accuse me of being racist against Europeans? How about calling them "the rainbow guard" or "red guard redux" - is that racist againt Chinese people?
"Pastel stormtroopers" and "Butler youth"- are those names racist against Germans?
What about "gender terrorists"? That anodyne enough for you?
As for your question about which trans-identified people would make good brand ambassadors for Nike: I don't know, and I don't much care. Though if I had to choose someone, I'd go with Buck Angel.
But Buck shouldn't be brand ambassador not for sports bras, because Buck's breasts were surgically removed decades ago. Similarly, it would be inappropriate if Buck were made brand ambassador for erectile dysfunction medications or did PSAs about prostate cancer.
In your rush to mount your high horse and slag off women like Sharron Davies, JK Rowling and me as "plain nasty" - and now as haters and weasels too - you fail to notice that women like Sharron Davies and I are not objecting to trans-identified people being brand ambassadors for Nike in general or other products. Davies and I aren't up in arms about Mulvaney shilling for Budweiser, for example.
Women - the female kind - and the men who support us are objecting to the specific instance in which Dylan Mulvaney, a MAN - and a MAN who makes his living mocking women and girls - has been made a paid brand ambassador speficially for Nike sports bras and leggings that are supposed to be designed to meet the unique bodily needs of female people. (We object to Mulvaney and his creepy friend Jeffrey Marsh doing paid promotions for Tampax and other menstrual products too.)
If Dylan Mulvaney were a brand ambassador for generic products not specific to the female sex - corn flakes or mouth wash, say - I'd have no problem with it. Just as I'd have no problem with Mulvaney shilling for Nike men's wear, Bike jock straps, Shock Doctor athletic cups, Adidas groin guards, Under Armor Boxerjocks, Calvin Klein men's briefs, Trojan condoms, Gold Bond Men's Essentials, Happy Nuts anti-ball-sweat chafing powder, Pete & Pedro's Body & Balls powder, Fresh Balls lotion, and so on, I'd have no problem with it.
You sure use a lot of words to say "I'm scared of something I don't understand even though it can't hurt me". That's ok, cavemen were also afraid of fire for a long time.
Try again, mate. Women understand misogyny perfectly well - and it's not antediluvian, backwards, primitive or "cavemanish" for us to have fear of it. Because contrary to what you claim, misogyny and misogynistic men (and boys) certainly can hurt women and girls, do hurt us today, and have hurt us over the long course of human history.
Since you brougt up cavemen: the stereotypical image of cavemen seen in many schoolbook illustrations and cartoons shows a big, burly bloke carrying a massive bone or tree limb he uses as a club in one hand and using his other hand to drag by the hair a much smaller woman he's subdued or knocked unconscious and he presumably has just raped or is about to rape.
You really think all the women and girls who were routinely beaten, stalked, raped, taken captive, confined, menaced, terrorized, tortured and preyed on by cavemen - and men in later times too - weren't hurt by what the men did to them?
Only a man utterly blind to the reality of what the female half of the human race has endured at the hands of men over the course of history - and all the verbal and physical abuse that many men and boys still heap on us on a routine basis today - would sneeringly and condescendingly tell a woman that she and others of her sex have no legitimate reason to fear men and their misogyny - and that we don't understand misogyny and its consequences, either.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.53 -
gsueueheueeu wrote:
You sure use a lot of words to say "I'm scared of something I don't understand even though it can't hurt me". That's ok, cavemen were also afraid of fire for a long time.
More evidence that plenty of women around the world understand the misogyny of Dylan Mulvaney and its consequences - and the misogyny of those who applaud, defend and excuse him too - perfectly well:
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.43 -
This again? wrote:
So called liberal opponents of trans rights like Davies or JK Rowling will be embarrassed by their own views in 20 years. Once the pendulum swings back in favor of acceptance, they will try and weasel their way back and forget the extent they hated this group of people.
If Dylan Mulvaney's current cosplay schitck and the way it's being celebrated in certain segments of society weren't about giving free rein to men to express their misogyny, show their contempt for women, and assert their supposed male superiority and dominance, then how come no female trans-identified person is getting the sort of attention, money and acclaim that's been heaped on Dylan Mulvaney?
After all, amongst teens and people in Mulvaney's age bracket, females who identify as trans outnumber males by 3 to 1 nowadays. Lots of young female people have documented their "transitions" by making regular videos posts online that show how they've altered their appearance and mannerisms, and how taking exogenous testosterone has physically changed them. But no so-called been transman has been lionized for her "Days of Boyhood" the way Mulvaney has been lionized for his "Days of Girlhood."
Why do you think that is?
64 -
This again? wrote:
So called liberal opponents of trans rights like Davies or JK Rowling will be embarrassed by their own views in 20 years. Once the pendulum swings back in favor of acceptance, they will try and weasel their way back and forget the extent they hated this group of people.
Come to think of it, why are nearly all all the big-name "trans people"who are constantly highlighted and celebrated in today's society exclusively male just like Dylan Mulvaney is?
How come no female youngster was turned into a "trans poster child" and has became as famous, feted and focused on as the young male trans persons who’ve been elevated to prominent status and lionized in the media such as Jazz Jennings, Kai Shappley, Trinity Neal and Kim Petras?
Why amongst the older generations of trans people are the ones who are constantly put in the spotlight, given awards, showered with praise, granted media and speaking, gigs, put in positions of power and cited in press reports as authorities on trans matters - and on women’s sports and women’s rights - all male trans people, to a man, as it were?
Where are the female counterparts to all the famous male heterosexuals who “transitioned” in middle-age or later - after having established successful careers in male-dominated feilds and usually after fathering children too?
Why isn’t there a plethora of heterosexual women, most of them mums, claiming to be men in mid-life or later to match the legions of heterosexual males who’ve declared themselves to be women in their late 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond like Rachel Levine, Martine Rothblatt, Caitlyn Jenner, Marci Bowers, the Wachowski siblings, Jennifer Finney-Boylan, Joanna Harper, Debbie Hayton, Kellie Maloney, Jan Morris, Renee Richards, Jennifer Pritzker, Robin Moira White, Zoey Tur and many more?
If males who identify as trans all have "minority status" - and, as we're often told, they also constitute the most marginalized, discriminated against, oppressed, mistreated and vulnerable group in society - then how come all of the male persons I've just named have continued to occupy powerful, influential positions in society after their so-called "transitions"?
Indeed, after their "transitions," many of the male people I've named actually gained more power, influence and prominence - and they seem to have done so precisely because of their new gender identities, not in spite of them. Rachel Levine, for example, probably never would had been appointed US Assistant Secretary of Health if Levine didn't claim to be a so-called transwoman.
If Joanna Harper hadn't supposedly "transitioned," Harper would be a little known hobby runner working in a hospital radiology deparment - and no media outlet in the world would be giving Harper a platform to tell the world why Harper thinks it's unfair and unreasonable for women and girls to have female-only sports.
If Catilyn Jenner hadn't taken on a new persona in Jenner's mid-60s, Jenner would be just another aging athlete long past his glory days widely regarded by the press and public as a has-been who's far less important today than Jenner's daughters and step-daughters. But now that Jenner has the elevated, sacred-caste status of a supposed "transwoman," Jenner is seen by many as a figure of renewed, up-to-the-minute relevance. What's more, Jenner is now being cited and hailed as a defender and champion of, and expert on, women's and girls' sport. When to my knowledge, for most of Jenner's life, women's and girls' sports were not things Jenner seemed to give a hoot about. And from what I've heard Jenner say on air about Title IX recently, Jenner doesn't understand the purpose or history of Title IX - Jenner doesn't even know in what decade it became law.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.63 -
When you've made the last several posts and thousand words in a row on a thread, replying to the same post multiple times, it's probably time to take a breather. #mentalhealthmatters
10 -
RunRagged wrote:
After all, amongst teens and people in Mulvaney's age bracket, females who identify as trans outnumber males by 3 to 1 nowadays. Lots of young female people have documented their "transitions" by making regular videos posts online that show how they've altered their appearance and mannerisms, and how taking exogenous testosterone has physically changed them. But no so-called been transman has been lionized for her "Days of Boyhood" the way Mulvaney has been lionized for his "Days of Girlhood."
Why do you think that is?
Corporate media are controlled by old men. Why is that even a news?
Maybe you should start lionizing "Days of Boyhood" by young trans men. Or at least you can ask the media to do that.
10 -
Nike was never great. Almost none of their shoes was ever wearable. I got injuries from the Structure Triax. Pegasus with the thick floaty soles? Aside from spikes, only the Lunar Trainers were any good. Even the Road Explosion 2 were only an adequate and heavy substitute for the discontinued Skylons, namely a road racing shoe for those who get injured from flats.
10 -
RunRagged wrote:
Come to think of it, why are nearly all all the big-name "trans people"who are constantly highlighted and celebrated in today's society exclusively male just like Dylan Mulvaney is?
Chaz Bono?
Elliott Page?
Kye Allums?
Brian Michael Smith?
Michael D. Cohen?
I think you only pay attention to certain certain publications that choose to focus on MTF transpeople because that's your bogeyman.
20 -
xczvzvxc wrote:
Nike was never great. Almost none of their shoes was ever wearable. I got injuries from the Structure Triax. Pegasus with the thick floaty soles? Aside from spikes, only the Lunar Trainers were any good. Even the Road Explosion 2 were only an adequate and heavy substitute for the discontinued Skylons, namely a road racing shoe for those who get injured from flats.
I have raced in vaporfly and it probably gave me 90 sec advantage in a half marathon. Those were the only carbon plate shoes available when I bought them (2020). I might try a different one next time. Is there anything you recommend? I usually train in NB 880 or 1080.
00 -
adios pro 3
10
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.