Sheila Reid is losing It - Hilarity Ensues - Says switch from 1500 to mile is "male nostalgia"

Apparently her energy to run has been drained for a long time.

She's probably just jealous that no woman has been able to run as fast as old white dudes like Coghlan and dare I say Whiteman.

listen here wrote:

Great post. It amazes me how it's ok to hate on white men. Can you imagine if she said "young black dudes are draining my energy." She'd probably loser her sponsorship in 5 minutes.

Great point.

This mile crap is nothing. Does she realize what American old white dudes think bacon is, eh? Let's crack a Molson and get this sorted right now, eh?

Apparently thinking the mile is a cool distance is part of some sort of larger "war on women?" What a nut. Talk about uptown problems.

Also, she's wrong that women have no history in the mile, and in college I respected several female milers on our team as tough athletes. It was actually easier to quantify what they'd done when they ran the mile.

How many 1500s per gallon does her car get?

I agree that she should be ashamed of (improperly as it turns out) bashing white men. Someone should tweet her back, "Seriously, I hate old white men!"

mid-20s, self-angry feminists are draining my energy rn

Actually I'm going to a bar to meet some right now (I'm ready 4 Hillary , Trump is a racist!).

Hilariously, we see Lewis' Law in play on this very thread:

The comments on articles about feminism justify feminism.

Why isn't Sheila pissed that women only race 6k in XC?

hahahaha wrote:

Hilariously, we see Lewis' Law in play on this very thread:

The comments on articles about feminism justify feminism.

Jerry Lewis?

“shitpost.”

“To make utterly worthless and inane posts on an internet message board.”

As in shitposting about Sheila Reid. Of course, she was shitposting about old white guys.

Just Tuned In wrote:

I know some of you like to toss around the term "PC," but what does anything she said have to do with PC?

I'm an old white man who pretty much agrees with her. And think of Rowbury's and Simpson's efforts to get under 4:00 for the 1500. Sort of meaningful to women.

Another old white man who agrees with her

Do we really think this is going to make people flock to collegiate track meets??

You agree with which part of the non-sequitor?

hahahaha wrote:

Hilariously, we see Lewis' Law in play on this very thread:

The comments on articles about feminism justify feminism.

People criticized Sheila for attributing this change and subsequent disagreement with others to old white men, when it has nothing to do with old white men, whilst noting that this sort of attribution of blame (to men, old people and / or white people) is common among third wave feminists. And your claim is that this justifies feminism?

Run through that one more time for me please. And no straw manning in your response. Thanks.

Good post. When you immediately get called Bobby Riggs for disagreeing with someone, their argument isn't on solid footing.

How stupid can you be? someone points out that women were ignored in the context of a decision (oh and this phenomena extends outside the realm of sport too) and your first response is to deduce her argument to some anti-male agenda. Did you consider that she may actually have a valid point and that you're just too stupid to comprehend it?

The reality is the ramification of said decision on female competitors was either never discussed or secondary to the marketability of the men's mile and the allure of the 4-minute barrier. That tends to happens when the people making the decision comprise mostly of one demographic ("old white males") who are out of touch with the consideration of others. Don't get me started on how that same demographic occupies 80% of coaching and positions of power, it must be because they work harder for it and deserve it.

I circular filed your counter-argument IMMEDIATELY after your first sentence.

Your first counter-argument is to call the person you disagree with names?

That's like FIRST on the list of intellectually dishonest debate tactics.

Rojo 1-- You --0

return your ivy degree wrote:

The reality is the ramification of said decision on female competitors was either never discussed or secondary to the marketability of the men's mile and the allure of the 4-minute barrier.

That's because there are no negative ramifications to women. There are literally none. Despite desperately digging not one compelling argument has been given for why women are disadvantaged by this decision.

How were women ignored?

The proposed change was put to a vote. Coaches listened to the pitch, considered it, then voted.

Unless you have personally asked all of the coaches that voted whether they considered how the change would affect women, then your claim is baseless.

Her argument is anti-male. From her twitter:

"This isn't marketability it's male nostalgia."

If you're not picking up on it, I'll explain:

male = bad

Did you consider that Rojo did consider her argument and simply disagreed?

Nope.

You attribute his disagreement to him "being too stupid to comprehend it"

What ramifications? Running an extra 109 meters?

How do you know that coaches didn't consider or discuss this?

You don't.

Again, what relevant ramifications are being held secondary to the above?

You haven't given any.

Annnnnnnd there it is. Again.

Fvck men.

Fvck old people.

Fvck white people.

Membership to the above categories invalidates arguments said members make. If said member disagrees with one who isn't a member of one or more of the above categories, said member is wrong. In cases of disagreement between members, the member who is a male or old is wrong.

Please do.

Alternative explanation: More men try to become coaches than women.

Nahhhh, it's that patriarchy.

Sheila is just mad HS girls will now send her home devastated.