I wonder what he thinks gives him the right to be so critical of anyone. What she chooses to do is her business. There's good reason she is in the Olympics and it isn't based on look's. The fact that she has received more attention than another competitor has no relevance on her performance. A good performance for any athlete can lead good fortune but, we need to remember what these athlete's went through and sacrificed to get there.

Ahhhh.

1) Well, she's certainly achieved Olympic success as a hurdler. Cuz she's in the friggin' Olympics as a...hurdler. Right?! What a retard.

2) "Women have struggled for decades to be appreciated as athletes." Okay. There's truth in that. Fine, fair enough.

3) "So she has played into the persistent, demeaning notion that women are worthy as athletes only if they have sex appeal." I'm thinkin' his interpretation is a bit wrong & he's unable to seperate what women are able to; Women want respect but they do want to be found to be found to be attractive as well. Perhaps his inability to do so is a result of he not being given THAT side in the study of women?

Hm. But a good example of the development thru which men must go when understanding women?

And oh, by the way, a big fan of Tim Tebow.

Reason Why They Hate Her: Located.

"Jere"? Just reading this doofus' byline screams zero credibility.

At the 2008 Beijing Games, Jones led before hitting the ninth of 10 hurdles. She stumbled home in seventh place.

How can she be a mediocre hurdler if she nearly won the gold, but tripped on the penultimate hurdle? And then made the US Olympics team again?

That's like calling Tiger Woods a poor golfer because he once missed a putt on the 17th hole in an important tournament. Silly.

There's been some of the same crap thrown at gold medal winning British cyclist Victoria Pendleton.

Because she's feminine, and has posed scantily clad for magazines like Esquire and FHM, she's been accused of damaging the credibility of British women athletes. As if it's impossible for us to think someone's hot and still respect their achievements.

Of course most normal Brits are too busy celebrating Pendleton's success to pearl-clutch about her "objectifying" herself.

Jealousy at its finest

Hey Amy! If she wins, can we tax her?

...Since she's being such a profiteering bee-eye-tee-see-ache, I mean?

Can we at least tax her for all the other stuff?

What if we tax her, but then we find out she kissed another girl in the locker room?

Com-pli-cated!

Jere's old and not exactly hot. http://www.stvincent.edu/newsDetail.aspx?id=2097

He'll never get close to anyone like Lolo.

That article is really gratuitously nasty.

"Her career has since ebbed..."

From this you might think Lolo has been a flop. What Longman doesn't mention is that her 2009 and 2011 seasons were mostly wiped out by injuries. When she was healthy in 2008 and 2010, she was world class.

She hasn't been in top form this year because she had freaking spinal-cord surgery last August -- surgery that she needed because she was losing the feeling in her feet. And yet she still made the U.S. team by qualifying at the Olympic trials. On the track -- not with a magazine spread.

Her dual comeback attempt -- from both her 2008 fall at the Olympics, when the gold medal was in her grasp, and from her surgery -- is the real story here. Anyone with half a heart could see that.

If she's such a washout, why does she have so many endorsements? One would think that any old model would do if they were just looking for a pretty face, but in the case of sports endorsements they want a *winner*.

The NYT? They LONG ago stopped being a leading newspaper and started being the advocate for liberal orthodoxy, PC-ness, the victim hierarchy among other things. Want to know what the NYT will write? Just listen to Hollywood or the ultra liberal academia crowd. If they think it, the NYT's writes it. Fortunately 90% of the people know what to expect from these peddlers of nonsense.....so their effect is negligible.

To the specific story, so an athlete (most especially a female athlete) who is good at their craft who also is above average attractiveness is going to have that attractiveness put on visual display more often than the others?? Wow! In other news of equal astonishment, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Note to NYT, people like to see attractive. It doesn't mean they always want to see attractive -- but they will want to see attractive more often. And this gets liberals' panties in a bunch because??

He's giving her shit because she's a religious prude. Good for him! I hate religious prudes.

> I hate religious prudes.

They've always spoken highly of YOU...

> she had freaking spinal-cord surgery last
> August -- surgery that she needed because
> she was losing the feeling in her feet.

That's fun to know! I think we can tease Jere for wearing braces on his middle-aged teeth now.

Women have struggled for decades to be appreciated as athletes.

No they havent. Any guy who is an athlete in the truest sense of the world respects honest effort and dedication, even more so than winning.

I've never met a single person who hlds female athletes in contepmt any more than various male athletes. And such contempt rarely stems for he fact that they are women

She looks like a lesbian love child of Christina Cox and Rashida Jones.

Lujlp writes >>>I've never met a single person who holds female athletes in contepmt any more than various male athletes. And such contempt rarely stems for he fact that they are women

I agree. I also don't know anyone who has contempt for female athletes. However, the positive view of good female athletic competition is a modern thing. And it's these pre-modern day norms that are key for the NYT and the like minded. The 'writer' uses the past ("struggled for decades") to propel his 'thought process'....and in general this is what propels the NYT PC writing philosophy. I guess to this 'writer', the modern day fact (in the thinking parts of the world) of female athletes who win do absolutely gain sports competition respect, it is an inconvenient truth to be discarded for a real (ahem) eye catching article.

This 'writer's' problem isn't about athletics, it is about mass media appeal. And because of the past, it seems his opinion is an attractive female athlete should not use that attractiveness for mass media success. With that logic, two things seem true: 1) because many millions of humans for centuries struggled to find enough food, a picture of a surf and turf from Black Angus should be considered appalling. 2) Advertisements for perfume that use an attractive female (or the 1000 other things attractive females sell), the NYT should strictly forbid that model from ever playing sports in front of people (stand straight, arch your back, smile real pretty, keep me employed as a 'writer'. But don't you dare throw a baseball!).

Attractive people are largely what visual mass media wants. If a female athlete is attractive (and male athlete to a looser extent), she will get more face time in mass media. It is a fact due to how us humans are built (fair or unfair). What is also a fact, if she is a competitive bust the sport competition respect will never materialize/evaporate quickly (see Anna Kournikova).

Longman: "Lolo Jones seems to have only a slim chance of winning an Olympic medal in the 100-meter hurdles and almost no possibility of winning gold."

Maybe so. The same could be said about most of the Olympic athletes. The vast majority aren't going to win any medal, let alone gold. But Lolo might; she is fast.

Longman: "Jones posed nude for ESPN the Magazine."

So have dozens of other accomplished athletes, both male and female, from every sport, including some who are participating in this years Olympics. Here's Lolo's picture: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20091006/SPORTS/91006017/Lolo-Jones-ESPN-photo
Does Longman despise them all, or just Jones? The pictures don't emphasize sexuality so much as the athletes' extraordinarily fit and athletic physiques. But extraordinary physiques can be very sexy. And there are few things a PC feminist hates more than a sexy woman.

Longman: "At the same time, she has proclaimed herself to be a 30-year-old virgin..."

Proclaimed? I think the topic of boyfriends and sex came up in an interview and Jones said that she'd never had a sexual relationship. So what? I don't know why, but there is something about virginity that just annoys the hell out of PC liberals. It isn't Jones who makes a big deal out of it. It's the PC sports and entertainment writers who get all obsessive and condescending over it.

Longman: "...and a Christian."

Ahhh. Now here is something that will provoke contempt from an intolerant, PC feminist writer. If Jones was a lesbian feminist, or a Muslim like that mustached, rolly-poly, 82 second Arabian judo princess, Longman's column would have been one big spasm of smarmy adoration.

Longman: "And oh, by the way, a big fan of Tim Tebow."

Well. God forbid. She actually admitted she admires Tim Tebow. Isn't he a Christian? Holy crap. As if being a virgin, a Christian and looking good naked isn't bad enough!

> I don't know why, but there is something
> about virginity that just annoys the hell
> out of PC liberals.

I kinda think this is true. I can't prove it, but I also kinda think it most annoys the people most eager to proclaim (to exclaim, even) that her sexuality is her own beeswax, whatever she wants to do with it. That's not the paradox it might seem to be... They're just busybodies.

(Still grateful to Jim Ryun for the mention of her neurosurgery.)

C'mon, everybody... Didn't your heart twinkle a little bit when you saw that someone had been "mean-spirited"?

And didn't you heart open like a tulip in the sunshine when you saw that it was the Times, who couldn't find a proper target for "mean-spritedness" even if you gave them a subway map and a GPS?

The NY Times are experts on losers. They know nada about athletes. MoDo can't find a man. Tom Friedman's admiration of China is only slightly smaller than his house. The paper is still losing money, but they boldly offer prescriptions for the economy.

Believe me, feminists are not going to be applauding this article or the author; it comes across as incredibly sexist and condescending and controlling women's sexuality yada yada. Especially the implication that Jones couldn't possibly pose naked in magazines AND be a virgin; no, one or both must be a media campaign. I'm sure we'll see feminist sites tearing the article apart too, probably just from a different angle.

"However, the positive view of good female athletic competition is a modern thing" TW @ 1:31AM

Here's some good female athletic competition from ancient Rome:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bikini_girls_mosaic_(Villa_del_Casale)

These scenes are from the wonderful mosaics at Villa del Casale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily, 3rd century AD.

The whole article is a pitifully desperate plea for post-modern feminist nookie. Which is the worst kind. Desperation.

> a pitifully desperate plea for post-modern
> feminist nookie.

Yeah. It reminds me of the old guy in Wolfe's Bonfire who obsessed over the girl with the brown lipstick. Unimaginable carnal pleasure!, 1980's-style.

But as Kate C has shown, the guy is making great strides with his dentition.

This could still happen, if I berate her 
cleverly enough...