Expect The Predictable

Back in 2020, Lindsay Crouse tweeted and apparently later deleted a comment about the popular miniseries The Queen's Gambit, claiming that the actress who plays the lead role, Anya Taylor-Joy, got the part because she's pretty. There's no doubt the actress is beautiful, but she's also very talented. In fact, as a young actress, she won the Trophee Chopard in 2017. Anya started acting in 2013 with her breakthrough role occurring in 2015 in the film The Witch, one of the more underrated movies of our time. It's best to watch this one with subtitles since the language is not authentic even though it's a well-done period piece and the accents are thick. Before landing the role of Beth Harmon, a fictional character loosely based on Bobby Fischer in the Queen's Gambit, she played Emma Woodhouse in Emma, Casey Cooke in Split, and Allie in Marrowbone, just to name a few of her standout roles. 

Anyone who looks at Anya as just a pretty face hasn't watched her act. There's nothing wrong with being pretty and being able to do a job. Crouse seemed to be upset that someone with above-average looks, which are subjective anyway, and who's also talented got the role, and implied that the character would have been better portrayed by someone plain-looking. I actually don't mind looking at beautiful people or plain people on the screen and don't feel the need to judge either based on appearances. Filmmaking is an art, though, and fictional characters can look however casting directors want: ugly, cute, scary, or anything in between. 

It's funny that someone who's known for demanding inclusion, even to the point of discriminating against biological women, is angry and wants to exclude good-looking actresses for certain roles in favor of those who are not, but, in addition to that being unfair, I have a question. Who decides? If not the casting directors, who gets to dictate which actresses are frumpy enough for Crouse's approval?

More and more, I see a trend of people wanting to police language, control conversations, and manage how people react and respond. It doesn’t matter the political party, censorship is in fashion. Online, it can be more subtle than a group publicly demanding what books are banned and which are not, which speakers are allowed to take the mic at events and who should be silenced, and which individuals should be canceled when they step out of line. In fact, I received an online scolding by Lauren Fleshman the other day when I voiced an opinion based on a pull quote from an article in Women's Running Magazine and was confronted, quite smugly, about my response, how wrong it was of me to make a comment about eating disorders based on the quote I read. 

Instead of focusing on the topic or defending a position, those who don't really want a conversation but want to be seen as right resort to condescending jabs. In some cases, people will shift the focus in an effort to control any possible dialogue. Apparently, I'm supposed to read a person's entire repertoire, especially if she's selling a product, before making comments and shouldn't rely on an interview-style article relating to the work. Keep this in mind any time you feel compelled to comment on anything written in a publication. 

I actually stand by my comments and have always been consistent when it comes to eating disorders not being a choice, as Fleshman suggests, intentionally or not, in the write-up. This isn't the first time she has done so or has at least implied people have control over their illnesses. These are very complex disorders, and those who suffer are affected by genetics, environmental factors, brain chemistry, social pressures, comorbidity, and upbringing. Any suggestion of a mental illness being a choice should be addressed. 

If Lauren was misquoted or wasn't clear in her statement, why not simply correct it or clarify the position instead of just talking down to someone? I have called out individuals who present inaccurate information before. In this case, I can't say I would trust anyone who would agree to be interviewed for a weight-loss article full of mixed messages and bad advice after presenting herself as an eating disorder recovery advocate, but I'll try to give the interviewee the benefit of the doubt and consider that maybe she wasn't fully aware of how the content in this other article would be presented. 

Regarding the piece on weight loss, I should add that it's not that dieting is a taboo topic per see, but when you see such cringeworthy and potentially triggering ideas about “flat-belly” breakfasts and advice about skipping post-workout snacks that have been shown to improve recovery, you can immediately determine that this is a piece that will likely cause more harm than good. Kevin Beck recently addressed the juxtaposition of this very article with another one by Runner's World. Women's Running has made similar missteps in publishing potentially damaging articles about weight loss followed by those that encourage eating intuitively. 

That wasn't the only tsk tsk I got from Fleshman, though. I didn't notice it initially, but earlier and quite out of the blue, she responded to a tweet of mine that linked to a blog post by Kevin Beck. Her accusation that Kevin "attacks" women with "threats and abuse" is an outright lie that she absolutely cannot back up with any evidence, none. I'm surprised she hasn't deleted the tweet yet. It's definitely in violation of Twitter's TOS and is a bad look for someone who is promoting a newly written book. 

My response caused her to block me, though. God forbid she engage in a conversation she initiated simply because she doesn't like my reaction to her lies. I have already addressed my feelings toward her, and her recent behavior has only solidified my thoughts about the kind of individual she is, not a very gracious one. 

I'm sure the two of us can agree on quite a lot of things including but not limited to her apparent support of fairness over inclusion* regarding transgender athletes that Amby Burfoot pointed out, the desire to see a healthier environment for women and girls in sport, and prevention and, I assume, treatment for those suffering from eating disorders, but, regarding the latter, I don't think just anyone can be a good recovery advocate. 

There is an art to speaking about this issue. It takes practice and an understanding of these kinds of illnesses, either by lived experience or by education, to be able to address an audience, online or in person, without inflicting more harm, even if it's unintentional. Too many people step into the role of advocate and give out incorrect information. I always admire Rachael Steil for her ability to discuss eating disorders in a safe, effective manner. 

As far as my upsetting online interaction with Fleshman goes, the way I view it is that someone who lies in order to attempt to manipulate another loses credibility. That's a given. I already had my issues with her before she decided to supervise my tweets and lie like she did. Any remaining respect I might have had for her as a person is pretty much gone. I have a lot of respect for her as an athlete and as someone who attended Stanford (I turned down a scholarship there in favor of attending BYU and don't regret it,) but I can't bring myself to support anyone who so carelessly tosses out false accusations, especially against my best friend. 

On that note, I have to clarify that I don't always agree with what Kevin writes. He can be callous in his approach, but he doesn't ever lie. That I admire. I don't condone his sometimes-abrasive descriptions of people, but if you look at some of the brilliant writers of the past, H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain, Charles Dickins, etc. he's in good company. 

Originally, I was going to write about the easily agitated people who get offended at the term girl when used in place of woman, but I ended up adding a few extra thoughts on my way to the topic. However, since Fleshman is among these individuals, there is a link to what I previously wrote. In order to tie things up more quickly here, I will briefly jot down my thoughts knowing there's a lot of information on this subject already out there if people are interested. 

A few years ago, Matthew Smith wrote a brief article that included statistics showing younger individuals in England tend to look at "girl" as a more patronizing or sexually suggestive --- which seems weird considering "girl" is, according to those same easily offended individuals, a child -- than older individuals. The actual full definition of “girl” is the following, and keep in mind that young is subjective and often relative:

/ (ɡɜːl) / noun. a female child from birth to young womanhood. a young unmarried woman; lass; maid. informal a sweetheart or girlfriend.

I'm sure there are weirdos who use "girl" as a pejorative, but most normal functioning individuals can tell the difference between someone who's intentionally trying to be disrespectful when calling a woman a girl and someone who's merely using a familiar term. Same with "guys" as in, "Hey guys! Let's go to a party," when referring to a group of friends consisting of both men and women or even just women. More often than not, people don't mean any harm when using these terms, and it's unproductive to assume people who use these words are doing so in order to put anyone down. 

If you find yourself getting upset over other people's use of generally non-controversial words, maybe consider the broader definitions. You don't really see men getting their panties in a bunch when they're referred to as boys. If you think some of the same adult women who claim to be offended haven't at some point said, "I'm going for drinks with the girls" or something similar, you would most likely be mistaken. 

As I caution others to calm the fuck down over the little things, I remind myself to do the same. I'm overly sensitive, so minor incidents can be hugely upsetting to me. My OCD brain spins these incidents around and around to the point of disrupting my emotional well-being. It's a matter of putting things in perspective, but usually, after a dose of blogging since running isn't much of an option these days, I end up feeling at least a little better. I hope others can find whatever it is that helps ease the discomfort that often comes with being human. 

*ETA: It looks like I may have been mistaken about Fleshman’s stance on transgender athletes, but a lot of people were as confused as I was about it. In this interview, she seems to suggest inclusion over fairness while acknowledging biological differences, though it's a wishy-washy comment that could be taken either way: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/01/10/1147816860/sports-world-still-built-for-men-elite-runner-wants-to-change-that ...but then she came out with this absolute mess, which sort of clarifies her stance that inclusion is better but also that girls go through different changes than boys during puberty.