Why Am I So Angry?

Because I already addressed the Shelby Houlihan case, and nothing has really changed after details of the CAS ruling came out, I'm mostly sidestepping the issue except to say that this write-up is one of the few that gets directly to the point. The way the loudest running "journalists" have handled the topic is atrocious, and I can't really add much to the conversation, at least not in any kind of scintillating way like Kevin Beck has. The whole thing makes me angry. 

Regarding all the sorting through the rubble that's occurring, though, what's shocking is the reaction of some Houlihan supporters who have harassed journalists like Alan Abrahamson for expressing what many of us feel about the situation, that someone needs to come clean. But even if that were to happen, which is unlikely, would that change anything? I doubt it. Look at cycling after the downfall of Lance Armstrong. People will always find ways to cheat, but fans don't like to see their idols knocked down or even called out. It's frightening how abusive people can be toward others who have a different opinion. Then there are those who just stick their fingers in their ears and look the other way, pretending nothing's wrong, which is fine, I suppose, if you're not a journalist. 

Erin Strout, who has boasted about muting people on Twitter, as if that's anything to be proud of, highlighted the fact that Houlihan had character witnesses testify over the fact that the athlete's burrito defense was more than a little unlikely before the writer set her tweets to private, which actually might be a good thing since fewer people will see the way she skews facts and is careless with triggering content. However, I'm not sure what the point of having a blue checkmark on Twitter and claiming the title of journalist is if you're too afraid to have a public voice. 

It's strange, but the fact that she took extra time to block me on a social media website is more bizarre than upsetting to me. I'm a female runner with a very long history in the sport, but she has a right to limit her audience to only those who fully back her. It's a bad look for anyone who's representing a publication like Women's Running, though. Blocked or not, nobody can see her tweets unless she approves it. I feel sad for anyone who continually boasts about her job as a journalist, usually by complaining about it publicly, the long hours, the work, the deadlines, the travel issues, yet feels it necessary to hide from anyone who doesn't agree 100 percent with her various takes. 

I guess I had more to say about that than I originally thought. 

Speaking of being angry, I experienced an unpleasant incident the other day while jogging on the trails. Two people were blocking a very wide and heavily used trail by walking side-by-side with their two dogs. I was coming up behind them and uttered two "ahems" in an effort to get their attention. Just when I was about to say, "excuse me," each one moved, she to the left and he to the right, so I assumed they had heard me. I went through the opening, ran a little longer, and then turned around to go back the way I had come. When I came upon the couple again, she started yelling at me, insisting I should have notified them that I was using the popular public path that they were hogging. In response, I pointed out that they must not have heard my efforts to do just that and later added something she probably didn't like but also may not have heard. 

It was a trivial occurrence, but it upset me. Initially, I brushed it off, but the more I thought about it, the more it pissed me off. Not that long ago, my mom fell, and I was rushing her to the hospital (she's OK now but broke her wrist) when some complete and total asshole ran a stop sign and then leaned out his window to make wild ape-like gestures and yell who knows what at me. Then he started in with the fucking games, driving 5 miles per hour and breaking hard on occasion specifically to impede my forward motion. I'm not a violent person, but I have never wanted to punch someone in the face so badly. Everyone is more on edge lately, though. It's not just me. 

Call it road rage or situational anger, I can see why there are so many horrific ends to minor incidents, though, as far as I know, it's not in me to actually go there. Still, the kind of anger I experienced in that moment made me realize how and why something that seems minor on the surface can get ugly fast. People's online behavior can be just as concerning, but I want to point out that there's a difference between someone calling out a person’s incompetence or lies and an individual being an actual bully who harasses others. Expressing opinions in a blog post about obvious bias and misinformation coming from journalists in the running community is not bullying. It's always odd to me how so many people who act pompous and arrogant are quick to play the victim when criticized.

While it's understandable to get angry at someone like the idiot who ran a stop sign who's very clearly in the wrong and intentionally being a piece of shit, sometimes determining what's right or what's not right isn't quite as clear-cut. It's also more difficult to call people out when their track record isn't 100-percent shitty and their unsavory behavior doesn't fall into the serial killer or road rage category. In fact, a few of the individuals I have scolded on my blog share similar views on many topics, but I can't bring myself to support or approve of anyone who intentionally misleads others, triggers individuals with sloppy content, or outright lies, even if we both like cheese.

In terms of how I look at information online, especially regarding running-related matters, things took a turn for me when I did a podcast on eating disorders with Lauren Fleshman and Ann Gaffigan that has mysteriously disappeared. For the life of me, I can't find a copy of it anywhere. Based on that interview alone, it's puzzling how Lauren is or ever was seen as any kind of expert in the field of recovery, but that seems to be how she's viewed. She has never fully addressed recovery in a compassionate or thorough way because she presents a flawed view of what others experience in the throes of severe illness. Her story seems to have changed since she participated in the podcast, but, despite the 180, it's difficult to understand her involvement with eating disorder recovery anyway. 

Whether or not she is aware of it, she has continually taken little swipes at those of us who struggle, subtly suggesting it takes the kind of mental toughness she possesses to avoid an eating disorder, thereby removing any emotional, genetic, or physiological component associated with these kinds of illnesses. I guess I'm just flummoxed by people's resounding support of her, no matter her behavior or what she says. On the one hand, she prefers recruiting athletes who haven't struggled with body image issues in the past, but on the other, she can be seen tweeting about Molly Seidel and her recovery during the Olympic marathon. It's a head-scratcher. I mean, Molly isn't exactly the kind of athlete Lauren suggests she would like to coach. I guess it's good that she can still cheer on someone who struggled, even if she prefers working with athletes who don't have any kind of history of eating disorders or body image issues, though, as I have stated before, I'm not sure how one determines this or why any coach would make this distinction. I'm just glad to see that Molly's coach didn't take that kind of approach with her. 

Regarding my own feelings during the podcast I now regret doing, it's not that I can't handle myself around opinionated people -- I grew up in a house full of them -- it's more that I wasn't expecting any kind of discord. I realize that not everyone is going to act in a way one might expect, but up until that point, every interview, podcast, and speaking event I had done that related to eating disorders was done so in an incredibly supportive, nurturing environment, a safe space, if you will, even if everyone involved had different ideas on recovery and different experiences. That was the first time I was caught completely off guard and couldn't quite figure out how to address someone skewing the facts. 

It left a really sour taste in my mouth, has bothered me since, and yet initially I tried to be supportive and search for some kind of greater good in the situation. It wasn't until recently that I couldn't bring myself to do that anymore, try to be accommodating and nice to people who don't deserve it. Misinformation never serves the public well. I won't condone it, especially if the content is potentially harmful to others and even if that makes me look like the bad guy in some people's eyes.

All this said, anger that grows doesn't serve the person who's holding it well. It clouds a person's perspective in other areas. I'm going to work on letting that shit go, but I'm not going to stop addressing liars, frauds, and cheats. 

What Outside Magazine Got Wrong

I wish online social media fuss didn't bother me as much as it sometimes does, but here I am writing another post on an article that derails the conversation about young athletes we should be having, one that includes how to properly guide them into a long and successful career. These kinds of situations are distracting, but I feel it's important to offer my viewpoint given my past as an athlete and my desire to continue mentoring others. This is a serious topic, so I don't like when people hamper progress in an area by quibbling over minor details. When there's a fire raging, you don't stop to yell about the dirt on the floor. 

For whatever reason, the article in the New York Times I mentioned earlier caused a lot of commotion. People stomped onto Twitter to say a lot of things about it. A few even suggested men shouldn't write about female issues. Imagine applying that logic to all areas, and you start to see how ridiculous an idea this is. But then a different man wrote something these same individuals agreed with, and it suddenly became OK for men to write about these topics.

It's unfortunate that so many people are misinterpreting the NYT article. The author, Mathew Futterman, recently mentioned on Twitter that his intention was to address the pressures young athletes experience. Could he have done it better? Probably, but nobody is suggesting puberty is the culprit or that the cruel twist Futterman mentions is the female body itself. The puzzle is why so many promising young female athletes have, as Kara Goucher put it, a "bumpy" experience when it comes to their running careers. The conversation should be about how to better support young athletes. Instead, despite the author's clarification, Outside Magazine Online decided it was necessary to slam the piece and insisted the article would somehow teach athletes to fear maturity. This isn't the first time Outside has published an article specifically to bitch about a New York Times article, either. It should be noted that the Outside article came out days after Futterman clarified his position.

A few errors that stood out to me in the Outside Magazine piece are listed below.

1.
"The article quickly changes tack, however, in order to make the point that many top female high school runners fail to live up to their early promise because of changes to their physique. One of the “cruelest twists in youth sports,” it seems, is that girls become women."

No, this isn't what the article stated or even suggested. It suggested that the pressures young female athletes experience, especially those who have had some success early, to keep their former form as their bodies change is why you often see disordered eating patterns, overtraining, and body image issues develop, and this is ultimately why  many of them don't have continued success in their sport and why the success of those who manage well later isn't always a straight progression. As I mentioned before, it most definitely does not say that the cruel twist is puberty itself, becoming a woman, or a woman's changing body.  

Puberty is natural. How society and many coaches view it may not be. We also look at mothers who have recently given birth and expect them to be back to their pre-baby bodies too quickly. The focus is relentlessly on women's bodies. That's the problem. We don't need to be defined as strong or thin or fit or fat. We need new ways of looking at women altogether. THAT is the problem. People reinforcing diet culture, fitspiration, thinspiration, and posting images that strictly define women as something to look at that put unnecessary attention on the body only are a big part of the problem. Keep in mind I'm talking about athletes here, though this happens in the world at large, too. 

The New York Times article is not the problem, far from it. All it did was point out something that happens that many of us observe or have even gone through and offer ideas about how to possibly prevent burnout, injuries, and disordered eating from occurring in a specific population. Another problem is that we aren't willing to look at statistics and information objectively anymore. Bill Mahr is right when it comes to outrage. People get riled up over someone who's actually trying to help instead of addressing the bigger issues in society and the root issues. 

2.
"Others criticized the author’s decision to cite Mary Cain, another high school standout from New York, as an example of a former teenage star whose career has “largely stalled.” Cain, as more than one person noted, has only just turned 22 and hence still has several years to develop and improve."

Nobody said Mary Cain's career is over, but it has stalled. That's an observation, not a criticism. There's nothing wrong with that at all. It just is. It doesn't mean she won't run well later or even soon. Still, she's missing what could be some of her most enjoyable years as a competitor, and there's no indication that she will return to the sport. Whether or not she does is nobody's business, really, but to pretend she's not like many others who had extra bumps in the road isn't being realistic. Bringing her up at all was only to mention that Tuohy and her team are aiming to try things differently and keep social media pressure and other stresses off of her as much as possible. I already addressed this in my last blog post. Whatever Mary does, she has already placed herself among the best of the best in running. If she likes, she has every right to rest on her laurels. If not, she has plenty of time to continue her running career. Nobody is denying that. 

3. 

Right before speculating about Tuohy's future and comparing her to another young athlete who set a world record, the author had this to say:

"As for Tuohy and her fellow high school runners, I think Fleshman and Goucher are right in that we should forswear speculating about their future potential."

The whole thing is rather confusing presented this way because we are supposed to acknowledge and celebrate her success, but only if we do it in the context of "her current athletic level." Despite the fact that this young lady is breaking course records and has two national high school records, we are NOT supposed to call her a prodigy defined as a person, especially a young one, endowed with exceptional qualities or abilities. No, that would be BAD and put too much pressure on her. 

In my opinion, what's more problematic than pointing out the prevalence of female runners who struggle to have a steady progression with large stretches of smooth sailing or calling someone with talent a prodigy is discounting or outright denying the number of times runners, even those who have had tremendous success, go through career-ending or potential career-ending struggles. I know at least three female Olympians who had major slumps early in their careers. Not that my personal observations mean anything, but there's a difference between a difficult transition and dropping out or being forced out of a sport you love early. This isn't to say women should achieve the same statistics or aim for the same type of progression as men; it's just pointing out that there is a difference and questioning why. 

What we should be addressing are how coaches can better guide young female athletes through the changes they naturally experience and how to keep the pressure off them so that the temptation isn't to try to hold onto an unrealistic standard. Encourage building strength so that they don't fall into disordered eating patterns or attempt unrealistic training schedules that their bodies may not be ready to handle. 

Though this wasn't the main topic of either article and is, perhaps, somewhat unrelated, we also need to be more aware and not deny the prevalence of eating disorders and body image issues at the elite running level. We also need to stop stereotyping those with eating disorders and other mental issues and stop focusing only on how someone looks as an indicator of wellness. Those who struggle don't choose a disorder and don't use it primarily to gain an advantage athletically. Mental illness is not a method of cheating. Implying otherwise certainly doesn't help resolve any issues young female runners might experience. 

Same As It Ever Was II

I'm lucky that my job doesn't require me to stand out on social media. Basically, if I aim to do my best in terms of being honest, kind, helpful, and knowledgeable, it usually translates into doing well at work. When I look at how people who rely more heavily on being in the public eye behave, it makes me realize how far we as a society have to go in order to even begin to change the unhealthy but terribly ingrained habits that form the often dangerous beauty standards we constantly see. Most of us are still so very unaware how we contribute to cultural assumptions and norms.

I was late seeing some of the more bizarre takes on the "if you don't love me at my XXX, you don't deserve me at my XXX" meme phenomenon that's occurring on Twitter at the moment. The original quote is: “I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.” - Anonymous. People initially made some cute or funny memes based on this, but, as they often do, those who crave the spotlight had to join in because everyone else was doing it. Then, all of a sudden, too many people took the opportunity to draw attention to bodies, women's bodies in particular, showing one supposedly less satisfactory image and one glammed up image side-by-side. It didn't take long for pretty much everyone to jump on board with their versions of worst and best, and I noticed a large number of people simply posting images of themselves at a higher weight or slightly less toned contrasted with a more socially accepted image.

My tipping point and why I wrote this post rather than engage with anyone on a social media platform was when someone who has been interviewed as an eating disorder recovery advocate and partnered with an expert to teach a virtual class on body image in 2017, through Oiselle presented an older image of herself shortly after having a baby but still in shape enough to be engaging in a high-intensity sport next to an image of herself looking extremely fit in a fashion show for a women's athletic apparel company. Since a few people already said what I was thinking, there was no need to beat a dead horse and get involved in any direct conversations. It was surprising that she posted something like this, and there was a lot of explaining afterward about how it's really a good thing, somehow aimed at progress, which I fail to see given the meme movement and the images themselves. When a few people called her out on what appeared to many as an odd way to support body positivity, what followed from both her and the clothing company was more than a little concerning. I couldn't help but have a reaction, one that I felt deserved a more measured response on my blog.

Before I even get into what was tweeted, let me remind everyone that it's widely accepted and has been for years that there's a strong correlation between social media and body image concerns. We already know the line between fitspiration and thinspiration is a slim and often blurred one, and the content of the two is often indistinguishable. I'm not going to get into how common it is for images to be stolen and use as pro-ana content. That's a separate issue, but it happens and is one more reason people should be more concerned about the types of images they post. Teens and young adults are especially vulnerable when it comes to being influenced by the messages and images found on social media, but it's not limited to women and girls. Boys and men are also affected, as are people in the LGBTQ community.

Blasting others with images of your body in such a way that draws disproportionate attention to the body itself will always have the potential to negatively affect those who are prone to compare themselves to others and seek approval through their weight, size, or fitness level. This kind of image with a strong emphasis on looks is obviously different from an image of someone simply engaging in a certain activity or enjoying a moment in front of the camera. In the case of the former, excessively promoting images that fit into the narrow definition of our society's warped definition of beauty is likely to negatively influence some, and contrasting two images that focus entirely on the body is certain to cause at least a few people to engage in unhealthy comparisons.

Most individuals post images on social media without thinking about the potential damage they can cause. What's surprising is how many individuals are unaware and uncaring in this area. Can we please just stop it and shift the focus away from women's bodies, period? We don't need new and different ways of looking at the aesthetics of a woman's body. This isn't helpful in the long run because the focus is still on looks rather than wellbeing, health, or anything deeper. Why must everything come back to this?

I know this seems like an impossible task. Everyone has rights and wants and needs, and many people want to get some validation through the images they post. The argument is that everyone wants to look good and be their best versions of themselves, Oprah style, which is all fine; just stop shoving your body parts, toned or not, in our faces and intentionally drawing attention to them at the expense of real content. Nobody should be supporting or encouraging people who post memes and images that very clearly send potentially harmful messages, even if the intentions of the poster are... the best. I'm sure some people will misinterpret what I'm saying and think, incorrectly, that I'm for a world with no images of bodies at all be it in fashion, athletics, or in general. That's not what I'm saying. If you feel that posting images of yourself somehow betters the world, by all means, post away. All I'm doing is presenting another side.

Let me spare you more ruminations and just post some of the thread responses along with my thoughts in red.

Q1: Why is her natural post-partum body at her worst?

(Exactly what I was thinking. Shouldn't this be a highlight in life, especially if you have a child and are able to return to the activities you love?)

 A: Our interpretation of the meme was not that the first image equals worse but more what is real - and not traditionally shared (as LF’s original blog points out). Either way, thank you for the comment.

(Despite the original quote very clearly stating "worst/best," we are somehow supposed to magically know by looking at the images that the OP had a different interpretation. In addition, aren't we the fools for not having read every single word of the OP's blog, especially posts dating back to 2013 and 2014. Shame on us, but since it has been brought to your attention that it's unlikely that anyone would take the images in the way they were supposedly intended, what now?) 


Q2: I think this trend should just be "if you don't love me at my XXX...you don't deserve me." The implication of "non-ideal" photos/bodies as "worst" & "beautiful" photos/bodies as "best" is not a healthy subtext


(This is one of the best responses I have seen. Yes, it's not healthy. I wish more people would understand this.) 

OP: I see it as a powerful way to say “take all of me or have none of me.” I think it subverts rather than endorses simply by encouraging the posting of a range of images as lovable. To each her own!

(OK, fair enough, but what about the message the images send without the added explanation? How many people are going to look at the images and then take the time to read all the responses to get to this explanation?)

Q3: "So let's review this," he said, incredulous. "Oiselle uses strategic lighting and angles so that its athletes look maximally lean and ripped for its ads, and now it's imploring its own target audience to be real about women's bodies."

 Q3: "I really think you should replace your entire marketing department," he said with unconcealed scorn. "I thought the 'Drink Responsibly' crap from booze-peddlers was patently hypocritical, but this is several levels worse."

 OP: For the record, both are my actual body :). And it is worth pointing out that the meme never says “worst” or “best” in reference to the images. Could be “candid” or “posed,” or any number of things. It’s telling that many assume “worst/best!

(Again, the original quote specifically states this, and the answer below couldn't be better, right down to the third-person panache.) 

 Q3: "I didn't assume anything!" he thundered. "But only a fool could fail to note what's implied by this juxtaposition. Oiselle is like virtually every other women's active-wear company in trying to have it both ways. It's as simple as that."

 Q4: Have you looked at their advertising lately? Oiselle makes it a point to have models of various shapes and sizes and clothing to fit them. Maybe you should become informed before you speak.

 Q3: "Well, isn't that sweet!" he trilled. "But the use of bigger models elsewhere has nothing to do with THIS post, which implies that it's OK to look 'normal' IF 'normal' is a temporary condition. I 'get' the intent, but trust me, it backfires."

I don't claim to have all the answers. Free speech includes freedom of expression, and anyone who wants can flaunt her body in any way she sees fit. I just wish more people would consider how easy it is to reinforce unhealthy or unrealistic standards of health, fitness, and beauty when the online audience is so vast. My concern is that if those who consider themselves knowledgeable about eating disorders are unaware of how potentially damaging certain kinds of memes and images can be, you can imagine how little is known about the toxic side of social media in the general public. Given this, it's likely we are going to see more and more people developing eating disorders. And that's why this kind of trend is so upsetting.

Few people take the time to consider the impact the images they post can have. Images send a message in an instant. You don't always have the luxury of looking away before an image pops up in your feed, and whatever message comes from it is internalized quickly. With some posters -- and I'm not suggesting this is the case with this particular situation but I'm sure it happens a lot -- as long as they're getting whatever benefit posting brings them, and as long as they get those reinforcing "likes," it's doubtful anything will change any time soon. One can hope, though. Damn, one can hope.