Molly Huddle calls out misogyny on letsrun.

Forrest Child wrote:

Just a reminder - most of the running fans don't give a crap, what a pro runner thinks about each of them. On the other hand a pro runner should be very careful, what he/she expresses publicly about his/her fans. They live through social platforms and are existentially dependent on them. The thing is - he/she is there for the fans. If it weren't for the fans, the pro runner would have no job (sponsorship). Nobody, except for her close family, cares about the opinion of Molly H. - a soon-to-be-mother, but a lot of fans might be interested about opinion of MollyH - the runner. Unfair? Well, such is life. Thus any public persona that thrives on the fan base - be it an actor, politician, famous athlete, etc. - should prepare for a lot of crap. Public figures have to endure public scrutiny and criticism - whether justified, or not (slander excluded). And that includes any - oh-so-offensive remarks about their bodies. After all, the body is what pays their checks, and what fans are perceiving 99% of the time. If they are not cut for that, they should choose another vocation, where nobody would care about their appearance, body, their gender, or performance of their physical shell. Easy as that. And it does not matter whether they are males, females, or any other gender they identify with.

You can't have it both ways - be a pro athlete, be adored by the fans for amazing feats you can do with your body, and at the same time, be sheltered from any speak about your body - positive or negative. Just because you happen to be (or identify as) a woman.

Jackas4sure wrote:

Forrest Child wrote:

Just a reminder - most of the running fans don't give a crap, what a pro runner thinks about each of them. On the other hand a pro runner should be very careful, what he/she expresses publicly about his/her fans. They live through social platforms and are existentially dependent on them. The thing is - he/she is there for the fans. If it weren't for the fans, the pro runner would have no job (sponsorship). Nobody, except for her close family, cares about the opinion of Molly H. - a soon-to-be-mother, but a lot of fans might be interested about opinion of MollyH - the runner. Unfair? Well, such is life. Thus any public persona that thrives on the fan base - be it an actor, politician, famous athlete, etc. - should prepare for a lot of crap. Public figures have to endure public scrutiny and criticism - whether justified, or not (slander excluded). And that includes any - oh-so-offensive remarks about their bodies. After all, the body is what pays their checks, and what fans are perceiving 99% of the time. If they are not cut for that, they should choose another vocation, where nobody would care about their appearance, body, their gender, or performance of their physical shell. Easy as that. And it does not matter whether they are males, females, or any other gender they identify with.

You can't have it both ways - be a pro athlete, be adored by the fans for amazing feats you can do with your body, and at the same time, be sheltered from any speak about your body - positive or negative. Just because you happen to be (or identify as) a woman.

Yeah but why would she care now? Molly is 37 and essentially done as a pro runner. She knows this.

ArkanBack RazorSas wrote:

This is 100% what I’ve been thinking for years. The idea of cultivating “free speech” without also putting down racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc. language and talk allows for breeding of those ideas.

Here are two scenarios everyone should consider. Scenario one allows for these ideas to spread. Scenario two stops them in their tracks and prevents them from spreading further.

Scenario 1

User 1: (says something racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc)

User 2: wtf that’s not okay to say.

User 1: lol it was a joke bro. Don’t be such a snowflake

User 2 and others: oh lol. My bad man. That was actually funny.

User 1 now feels confident they can continue to say things until it becomes normalized and no longer challenged.

Scenario 2

User 1: (says something racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc)

User 2: wtf that’s not okay to say.

User 1: lol it was a joke bro. Don’t be such a snowflake

User 2 and others: no dude that isn’t okay even if you’re joking. I’m gonna report it and have the mods take it down.

Mods proceed to take down the post. User 1 now feels uncertain that their ideas will be accepted and proceeds to maybe try again but most likely either stop posting those things and stick to running or they will stop visiting the board.

Being a place that allows free speech is fine but that doesn’t give you a free pass from being challenged, called out for and moderated for any form of hate speech. Everything you say has ramifications. If you don’t believe me, go checkout r/byebyejob to see the racists who have lost their jobs for their words. They have every right to say what they want, which I’m glad that they feel that convicted about it. But that right doesn’t prevent them from feeling the ramifications of those words in their personal life.

dribblet1422 wrote:

Light the blue touch paper wrote:

+1 - LRC is a toxic in every respect:

- lots of feintly veiled racism.

- lots of misgony - e.g. most of this thread.

- lots of abuse

Little evidence, little logic, zero understanding of science, little understanding or consideration of the views of others. And on the part of LRC, zero moderation from people with ethics, morals or an understanding of what is reasonable in life.

The bottom of the gutter for sure and a large problem of what is wrong in the world.

I used to come on here on occasion in high school (back in the very early days of LetsRun), and as a young female runner, it horrified me. I've been very unsurprised on my recent return to see how little has changed. Insecure cross country boys apparently grow up to stay insecure cross country boys. What's especially funny is how much it bothers them that most of the people faster than them don't share their narrow, hateful views on the world.

Jackas4sure wrote:

Forrest Child wrote:

Just a reminder - most of the running fans don't give a crap, what a pro runner thinks about each of them. On the other hand a pro runner should be very careful, what he/she expresses publicly about his/her fans. They live through social platforms and are existentially dependent on them. The thing is - he/she is there for the fans. If it weren't for the fans, the pro runner would have no job (sponsorship). Nobody, except for her close family, cares about the opinion of Molly H. - a soon-to-be-mother, but a lot of fans might be interested about opinion of MollyH - the runner. Unfair? Well, such is life. Thus any public persona that thrives on the fan base - be it an actor, politician, famous athlete, etc. - should prepare for a lot of crap. Public figures have to endure public scrutiny and criticism - whether justified, or not (slander excluded). And that includes any - oh-so-offensive remarks about their bodies. After all, the body is what pays their checks, and what fans are perceiving 99% of the time. If they are not cut for that, they should choose another vocation, where nobody would care about their appearance, body, their gender, or performance of their physical shell. Easy as that. And it does not matter whether they are males, females, or any other gender they identify with.

You can't have it both ways - be a pro athlete, be adored by the fans for amazing feats you can do with your body, and at the same time, be sheltered from any speak about your body - positive or negative. Just because you happen to be (or identify as) a woman.

Yeah but why would she care now? Molly is 37 and essentially done as a pro runner. She knows this.

Ok7272 wrote:

ArkanBack RazorSas wrote:

This is 100% what I’ve been thinking for years. The idea of cultivating “free speech” without also putting down racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc. language and talk allows for breeding of those ideas.

Here are two scenarios everyone should consider. Scenario one allows for these ideas to spread. Scenario two stops them in their tracks and prevents them from spreading further.

Scenario 1

User 1: (says something racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc)

User 2: wtf that’s not okay to say.

User 1: lol it was a joke bro. Don’t be such a snowflake

User 2 and others: oh lol. My bad man. That was actually funny.

User 1 now feels confident they can continue to say things until it becomes normalized and no longer challenged.

Scenario 2

User 1: (says something racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc)

User 2: wtf that’s not okay to say.

User 1: lol it was a joke bro. Don’t be such a snowflake

User 2 and others: no dude that isn’t okay even if you’re joking. I’m gonna report it and have the mods take it down.

Mods proceed to take down the post. User 1 now feels uncertain that their ideas will be accepted and proceeds to maybe try again but most likely either stop posting those things and stick to running or they will stop visiting the board.

Being a place that allows free speech is fine but that doesn’t give you a free pass from being challenged, called out for and moderated for any form of hate speech. Everything you say has ramifications. If you don’t believe me, go checkout r/byebyejob to see the racists who have lost their jobs for their words. They have every right to say what they want, which I’m glad that they feel that convicted about it. But that right doesn’t prevent them from feeling the ramifications of those words in their personal life.

I think this is an intelligent post but I don't approve of people who want to pressure others to sack CEOs and stuff for not having the right political views. A CEO in silicon valley posted that he's happy for the Texas abortion law and he gets fired. I can say that's not right. A football coach got fired for past emails. I don't think our culture honors free speech even if they have a right to punish people for it.