Wow. Just wow. Really Runner's World?!

This makes sense. As a female runner who takes it seriously, it's annoying to see articles about makeup and cute sports bras and the perfect chia seed recipe all the time. Reinforces the stereotype that men are all serious about training and competition and women are just in it for the weight loss and the instagram posts. An article on the dangers of running alone as a woman is obviously important, otherwise I'd like to see more profiles of elites (Male and Female!). But unfortunately doesn't sell as well.

Sum Good Sum Bad wrote:

RW is a joke wrote:

RW is a joke. By this time next year they will probably have a make-up article for men.

Featuring Donald Trump! That would be awesome from so many angles.

That doesn't really make sense. I'm no fan of fake tan Trump, but the fact is that SJW types, liberals in general in fact, are now all so feminine and willing to bend and spread for BLM agitators, refugees, violent illegal aliens, really any POC, that it makes more sense to have Anderson Cooper, Chuck Schumer, Michael Moore, really any leftie (just like Sum Good Sum Bad) as the focus of makeup tutorial.

Runn,

Do you (or anyone else) have a copy of the September 1976 edition of Runner's World? I would really love to see a photo of the cover to confirm/deny something.

Thanks!

GDI wrote:

"A lot of the articles traffic in hyper feminine stereotypes without getting at the real issues."

So what are these "real issues"?

________________

For some women, real issues might include

Sports bras: Not a huge deal for me, but I have a really compact body. Still, I've run into issues with the tradeoff between controlling bounce and being free enough that my lungs don't feel compressed.

Menstrual cycle: how to manage symptoms while training. Whether or not it affects performance. Bloating, GI-related issues, etc.

Shoes: buying racing flats (this can be a problem because may running stores don't regularly stock women's sizes).

Other clothing: finding quality split leg shorts. Issues related to finding and wearing comfortable gear and having to deal with harassment or even judgmental looks. I once went to a gym while traveling and was called out by staff for wearing a sports bra without a top while running on the treadmill (at a place that has a pool, no less).

Pregnancy: not my thing, so far, but there was a lot of talk about this on a thread about people trying to qualify for the Olympic Trials Marathon.

Finally, I do think there's a place to talk about make-up because many women feel so uncomfortable not wearing it that they can't imagine showing up at a race with none on. I'd much rather this conversation than one that assumes I want to "look my best" while racing.

ALL OF THIS SAID: these are relatively minor issues when it comes to women's running. Runner's World and other publications focus on this stuff so much, that you'd think women are just a uterus on legs. It's ridiculous. I want real training tips, like the previous poster said.

And the reason it grew and continues to be published is because it doesn't just focus on pros and fast people that no one cares about anymore. People don't even pay attention to the Olympics anymore unless Bolt is running.

It is a bit crazy, but there are a lot more running housemoms than 15 min 5K runners. Also, how many articles on training can runners world do? It's not that complicated of a sport.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Did they consult Shannon Rowberry? She uses inch thick make up, she would be the WR record holder without it.

Shannon "Frosty the Snow Clown" Rowbury

Bottom line wrote:

And the reason it grew and continues to be published is because it doesn't just focus on pros and fast people that no one cares about anymore. People don't even pay attention to the Olympics anymore unless Bolt is running.

Case in point, the demise of Running Times.

But who reads magazines anymore anyways? I used to read "The Economist" for news stories until they swung 100% LW, SJW, and stopped being impartial. Why pay for that, and why pay for hobby jogger recycled running stories?

Well it certainly sounds like you know more about what the average woman wants out of RW than our editorial board. Please send your resume to me so that I can hire you and watch sales skyrocket.

_______________

As you probably know, most of us on the LR message board are well into six figures, so it's going to take a pretty substantial sum to pull me away from my current gig. What can you offer?

Safe space wrote:

This makes sense. As a female runner who takes it seriously, it's annoying to see articles about makeup and cute sports bras and the perfect chia seed recipe all the time. Reinforces the stereotype that men are all serious about training and competition and women are just in it for the weight loss and the instagram posts. An article on the dangers of running alone as a woman is obviously important, otherwise I'd like to see more profiles of elites (Male and Female!). But unfortunately doesn't sell as well.

In other words, you prefer Running Times. We all did.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Did they consult Shannon Rowberry?

Clearly you're a dedicated fan of both reading and the sport of track and field.

If the operators of this board could somehow impose an IQ test for people to obtain posting privileges and the value were set to 100, about 75 to 80 percent of the regulars would disappear in an instant.

have to sell wrote:

Bottom line wrote:

And the reason it grew and continues to be published is because it doesn't just focus on pros and fast people that no one cares about anymore. People don't even pay attention to the Olympics anymore unless Bolt is running.

Case in point, the demise of Running Times.

But who reads magazines anymore anyways? I used to read "The Economist" for news stories until they swung 100% LW, SJW, and stopped being impartial. Why pay for that, and why pay for hobby jogger recycled running stories?

The Economist is not left wing or "SJW" you nitwit. Its political bent has always been classical liberalism, spruced up with a spoonful of pragmatism and a dash of elitism.

The definition of pragmatism has changed a tad since 20-30 years ago, so its views on some specific social issues has changed. But the overall philosophy is intact.

GD wrote:

RW publisher calling GD wrote:

Well it certainly sounds like you know more about what the average woman wants out of RW than our editorial board. Please send your resume to me so that I can hire you and watch sales skyrocket.

_______________

As you probably know, most of us on the LR message board are well into six figures, so it's going to take a pretty substantial sum to pull me away from my current gig. What can you offer?

An old lazyboy chair in mom's basement. I'll be a gentleman and take the folding chair.

honestly who gives a sh!t if some people wear makeup when they run and if RW writes about it

worry bout yourselves

They are all Cucks wrote:

Sum Good Sum Bad wrote:

Featuring Donald Trump! That would be awesome from so many angles.

That doesn't really make sense. I'm no fan of fake tan Trump, but the fact is that SJW types, liberals in general in fact, are now all so feminine and willing to bend and spread for BLM agitators, refugees, violent illegal aliens, really any POC, that it makes more sense to have Anderson Cooper, Chuck Schumer, Michael Moore, really any leftie (just like Sum Good Sum Bad) as the focus of makeup tutorial.

I see you've been triggered, my teeny little snowflake.

sanchobaile wrote:

honestly who gives a sh!t if some people wear makeup when they run and if RW writes about it

worry bout yourselves

Honestly, who gives a sh!t if some people post trivia about RW and if others respond?

Worry about yourself.

Not true. Runnersworld is no longer targeting mainstream runners at all. Most women with normal lives do not need advice on make up or clothing from a running mag. The magazine is an insult to women as much as it is to men. It's a f**king joke and shows how idiotic Rodale really is when it comes to marketing. They are targeting fickle C25K-ers and people who probably won't last a year in the sport.

Crikey mate!! wrote:

You do know that Runnersworld is mainly trying to appeal to a broad-based. mainstream demographic right? Not just the basement dwellers that inhabit LRC.

GD wrote:

A lot of people here are annoyed at articles geared towards women, and some of that is plain sexism.

You clearly do not know what sexism is. Stop inaccurately accusing so many people. Don't be a SJW snowflake. You can not like articles geared towards women without being sexist.