Forums >General Running>New study: The 10k is increasing in popularity and on average, women are completing it faster than men
an amazing likeness
Doesn't matter, if you around during the 70's, society had conditioned women to stay away from basic exercise then such as aerobics. The whole movement for women became popular right when Jane Fonda came out with her workout tape in the early 80's. Even my mom got started around then.
I completely disagree. During the 70s there were numerous women-focused "basic exercise" trends emerging: (1) the President's Physical Fitness test (grades 6 - 9) was totally co-ed; (2) there were co-ed teams for field hockey, tennis, softball and even some ice hockey at the high school level; (3) nearly all the elite colleges (Little Ivies) become co-ed and created women's intramural versions of the men's varsity sports [nearly all my high school beer was paid for by money earned referring women's college ice hockey games at 11PM Sunday]
Germane to RA, the 'jogging' craze of the 70s was predominately women, it is what gave us the 2nd wave of runners like Joan Benoit.
Even more germane...the current growth in road races, giving us all more options and opportunities is a direct result of women driving more demand for more events at every distance. The currant golden age of tons of races in every distance, mud runs, color runs, et al, is a direct result of women from the 70's and 80's driving demand.
If it were still a men-focused running world, there'd be about 4 10Ks per year and 2 marathons in each region of the country with a lot of knee sox and Converse All*Stars.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
That news doesn't surprise me. Back in the 70's on my high school's cross country team, there wasn't even a women's team then. I remember we allowed 2 girls to join the team because of that. Yet now when I'm running on some trails I see lots of female high school running teams practicing out there. And many a times, I've noticed more women than men running out there. That was unheard of though back in the 70's. Give Jane Fonda and the whole women's lib movement credit for getting those girls off their butts.
While we may not have been able to compete in varsity sports because of some stupid rules, many of us were out hiking and backpacking and whatever, certainly not sitting.
We did have limited varsity sports in hs (field hockey, basketball, softball) in early 60s, but the college I attended (65-69) didn't have intercollegiate women's sports. They did have a very active Outing Club. Some colleges did have women's athletics; some colleges didn't accept women yet. I selected college for its educational values.
Maybe I was out in the woods somewhere, but I sure don't remember Jane Fonda playing a major role in some changes that eventually took place. (I didn't have ready access to tv through much of 70s and that was before pc's and internet.)
One day at a time
My high school ('76-'80) had a good girls' XC team. The vast majority of the "brainy" kids, though, did not even consider participating in a sport, unlike today. At my kids' high school, it's almost expected that everyone plays at least one sport. The percentage of participation is about 80%, last I heard.
I grew up in Zimbabwe, just north of South Africa, and remember competitive sports for girls and young women including tennis, field hockey and swimming. Golf was another "ladylike" choice.
I was not a runner and don't remember women running but they must have been or else how did Zola Budd get so good?
PBs since age 60: 5k- 24:36, 10k - 47:17. Half Marathon- 1:42:41.
10 miles (unofficial) 1:16:44.
not bad for mile 25
I believe my ire is directed at the AD's that decide they need to keep football and then drop men's track so they can balance numbers (particularly in 2nd tier D-I football schools). This happened to one of my friends who ran at a neighboring high school twice within 4 years. I also believe I'm blaming the design and language of Title IX, since it can be interpreted in such a way requiring a school to cut existing programs.
I believe my ire is directed at the AD's that decide they need to keep football and then drop men's track so they can balance numbers (particularly in 2nd tier D-I football schools). This happened to one of my friends who ran at a neighboring high school twice within 4 years.
I also believe I'm blaming the design and language of Title IX, since it can be interpreted in such a way requiring a school to cut existing programs.
I think that's pretty much the point of Title IX: It forced institutions to make choices that were gender-balanced. If that meant dropping some men's programs to alleviate the huge imbalance in favor of the men, so be it.