• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NewYorkTimes Attacks Lolo Jones!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
The original article writer at the NYT is being a douchebag. Is she supposed to wear a Burka and walk 10 paces behind a man because she chooses to remain a virgin until she finds the "right guy"?? Seriously the guy is just an asshole looking to make a name for himself at her expense due to her chosen lifestyle and open religious beliefs sadly.
Agreed. According to some of the leftists on here she should be all covered up.

The guy targets since she is well known to boost his profile, pathetic but what else would you expect from the Times
 

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
Agreed. According to some of the leftists on here she should be all covered up.

The guy targets since she is well known to boost his profile, pathetic but what else would you expect from the Times
You guys can't be this dense. All he did was call her out for being a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with wanting her to be covered up and everything to do with someone who espouses Christian values and emphasizes her virginity to the media and then goes out and poses semi-nude for ESPN for "art." Let's quote the article:

In 2009, Jones posed nude for ESPN the Magazine. This year, she appeared on the cover of Outside magazine seeming to wear a bathing suit made of nothing but strategically placed ribbon. At the same time, she has proclaimed herself to be a 30-year-old virgin and a Christian. And oh, by the way, a big fan of Tim Tebow.
The author's entire focus for his op-ed piece is that the Olympics should be focused on athletic performance and not sex appeal. While the reality of the commercial world may be that she has a better chance of getting endorsements due to her looks, it does not mean a person should not have the opinion that the Olympics was intended to stand for a world gathering of each nation's top athletes for a competition in goodwill. This is not the Miss Universe Pageant. Let's see what else the author said:

Not always the most confident athlete, Jones has acknowledged battling doubt all season. Her modest times show it. Heats of the hurdles begin Monday. If Jones can remain composed and improve her technique and speed, she can also write a great and improbable story of Olympic redemption.

After stumbling four years ago, she is back on her feet, back in the Games. Back in position to be appreciated for her athletic skill, not merely her sex appeal. Back in position to undress her opponents, not herself.
So, please stop with the nonsense that this was an attempt to be a misogynist.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
In the original olympics , only men were allowed to compete and it was done completely in the nude. Just sayin...for reference.

As an aside, I do not find her attractive...not womanly enough.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
You guys can't be this dense. All he did was call her out for being a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with wanting her to be covered up and everything to do with someone who espouses Christian values and emphasizes her virginity to the media and then goes out and poses semi-nude for ESPN for "art." Let's quote the article:



The author's entire focus for his op-ed piece is that the Olympics should be focused on athletic performance and not sex appeal. While the reality of the commercial world may be that she has a better chance of getting endorsements due to her looks, it does not mean a person should not have the opinion that the Olympics was intended to stand for a world gathering of each nation's top athletes for a competition in goodwill. This is not the Miss Universe Pageant. Let's see what else the author said:



So, please stop with the nonsense that this was an attempt to be a misogynist.
You could be right but you forget that its the NewYork Times, there are other motives such as her being a Christian and a virgin, You dont know just how bad the Times is
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Lolo Jones is an amazing athlete, why is he attacking her?

He wouldn't do this to that saudi female judo athlete
 

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
Lolo Jones is an amazing athlete, why is he attacking her?

He wouldn't do this to that saudi female judo athlete
Did the Saudi Judo Olympian publicly flaunt her religion and chastity and then pose nude for magazines? Everyone who can make the Olympics is a fairly amazing athlete. The question now is who deserves the attention in the Olympics. Those who have achieved athletic success at the Olympic games or those who look pretty?
 

stlc8tr

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2011
1,106
4
76
Lolo Jones is an amazing athlete, why is he attacking her?

He wouldn't do this to that saudi female judo athlete
Ironically, she's the subject of his article because she gets a lot more press than her modest accomplishments would normally warrant. Granted, she's won a couple of indoor championships at the 60m hurdles but how many people even knew that the 60m hurdles was an event? Compare her with Dawn Harper, who's a two-time Olympic medalist (gold & silver) for the US in the 100m hurdles.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Did the Saudi Judo Olympian publicly flaunt her religion and chastity and then pose nude for magazines? Everyone who can make the Olympics is a fairly amazing athlete. The question now is who deserves the attention in the Olympics. Those who have achieved athletic success at the Olympic games or those who look pretty?
She did though when she refused to take that thing off her head because it violates her religion. She makes a good miss mustache 2011 and she must have been over 200lbs in that picture
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
You guys can't be this dense. All he did was call her out for being a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with wanting her to be covered up and everything to do with someone who espouses Christian values and emphasizes her virginity to the media and then goes out and poses semi-nude for ESPN for "art." Let's quote the article:
She was not a hypocrite. Being a hypocrite would entail that she would go out and perform wanton sexual acts with random men while espousing her "Virginity" to the press. Her actions (posing for sexy photos for crying out loud) does not mean she is no longer a virgin or that she does not hold her original views of waiting for the "right person" to lose her virginty. If we would put aside the pathetically ancient puritanical argument that virgins (and women in general) should behave in certain way (especially in regards to their looks) you'll see that this is nothing more then a hit piece by journalist with a agenda.

The author's entire focus for his op-ed piece is that the Olympics should be focused on athletic performance and not sex appeal. While the reality of the commercial world may be that she has a better chance of getting endorsements due to her looks, it does not mean a person should not have the opinion that the Olympics was intended to stand for a world gathering of each nation's top athletes for a competition in goodwill. This is not the Miss Universe Pageant. Let's see what else the author said:
And that is not the fault of Lolo. The fault lays with media itself who controls the agenda over who gets press and who doesn't get any press at these events. Furthermore she is not the only person in the Olympics who received positive press based on their physical looks so I don't see how this argument can even hold water when the author of the article is attempting to single her out for retribution.


So, please stop with the nonsense that this was an attempt to be a misogynist.
Do you even know the meaning of the word?

Edit: Furthermore if you peal back another layer of this journalist's argument you see a subtle but present hint of him insinuating that she is a slut behind this accusation of her being a "hypocrite".
 
Last edited:

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
She did though when she refused to take that thing off her head because it violates her religion. She makes a good miss mustache 2011 and she must have been over 200lbs in that picture
Weren't you just complaining about how the media portrays women? But then you say that. This is typical behavior from the rightwing.
 

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
She was not a hypocrite. Being a hypocrite would entail that she would go out and perform wanton sexual acts with random men while espousing her "Virginity" to the press. Her actions (posing for sexy photos for crying out loud) does not mean she is no longer a virgin or that she does not hold her original views of waiting for the "right person" to lose her virginty. If we would put aside the pathetically ancient puritanical argument that virgins (and women in general) should behave in certain way (especially in regards to their looks) you'll see that this is nothing more then a hit piece by journalist with a agenda.
So, let me get this straight. Lolo Jones puts her CHRISTIAN beliefs out there, using her virginity as an example of her devotion to her faith, and then poses nude and semi-nude for magazines, but it's everyone else that has misguided views about the "place" of women in our society. No one has espoused that people never play on their sexuality. It's not mentioned once that sexuality cannot be used. In fact, let's see what the author states instead of what you seemingly wish his article stated:

And she [Lolo Jones] has denounced a double standard that celebrates male athletes as sex symbols but derides women. She has a point. No one is complaining that Ryan Lochte is athletic eye candy.

Of course, Lochte is also appreciated for his haul of Olympic swimming medals. Victory alone is often not enough for women.
So, here we have an author that not only does not see a problem with a person who is noticed for their sexuality, but, and I am saddened that this has to be reemphasized for you to comprehend, when we're dealing with the Olympics and not Miss Universe, the author puts forth the proposition that maybe an athlete should let their athletic accomplishments speak for themselves instead of using your sexuality to garner attention from the media when your athletic performance at the subject sporting event is lackluster.

And that is not the fault of Lolo. The fault lays with media itself who controls the agenda over who gets press and who doesn't get any press at these events. Furthermore she is not the only person in the Olympics who received positive press based on their physical looks so I don't see how this argument can even hold water when the author of the article is attempting to single her out for retribution.
First, read the quote above. The author fully acknowledges that athletes who are more attractive get more attention. He writes, plain as day, that Lochte has gotten an extraordinary amount of attention due to his sexuality, but he backs up that aspect of his image with winning medals at the Olympics. Once again, since this seems to be so hard for many to understand, the Olympics is a sporting event. And while I agree that the media is also fully to blame for picking and choosing athletes that have the most sex appeal to follow (realistically, they choose the athletes with the most compelling stories to follow around, which includes sex appeal), it does not mean we do not have the capacity to realize that there can be blame on more than one person.

For every media outlet that wants to focus on an athlete's sexuality, there is the subject athlete that has every ability to disregard attention based upon their sexuality. No one is proclaiming that these men or women never use their sexuality but merely that sexuality should come second to athletic achievement.




Do you even know the meaning of the word?

Edit: Furthermore if you peal back another layer of this journalist's argument you see a subtle but present hint of him insinuating that she is a slut behind this accusation of her being a "hypocrite".
Let me quote Merriam Webster for you along with what you wrote in a previous post:

Definition of MISOGYNY

: a hatred of women
And your quote from post # 50:

Is she supposed to wear a Burka and walk 10 paces behind a man because she chooses to remain a virgin until she finds the "right guy"??
You apparently think that the author carries a fundamentalist attitude about the position women should hold in society, thus the author must hate women who don't fit that model. Nowhere in the article, and I ask you to find me a quote since you claim that if you peel the article's outer layer, you find that the author believes Jones is a slut, does it even hint that there's anything wrong with Lolo Jones being a devout Christian or a virgin. Instead, he points out that it is hypocritical (see argument above) to point to your faith and your piety and yet pose nude. Hell, that's not even the main point of the article as it's evidence used to support the author's main point that sexuality should not be the focus of reporting at the Olympics.

I patiently await your rebuttal.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
So, let me get this straight. Lolo Jones puts her CHRISTIAN beliefs out there, using her virginity as an example of her devotion to her faith, and then poses nude and semi-nude for magazines, but it's everyone else that has misguided views about the "place" of women in our society. No one has espoused that people never play on their sexuality. It's not mentioned once that sexuality cannot be used. In fact, let's see what the author states instead of what you seemingly wish his article stated:



So, here we have an author that not only does not see a problem with a person who is noticed for their sexuality, but, and I am saddened that this has to be reemphasized for you to comprehend, when we're dealing with the Olympics and not Miss Universe, the author puts forth the proposition that maybe an athlete should let their athletic accomplishments speak for themselves instead of using your sexuality to garner attention from the media when your athletic performance at the subject sporting event is lackluster.

First, read the quote above. The author fully acknowledges that athletes who are more attractive get more attention. He writes, plain as day, that Lochte has gotten an extraordinary amount of attention due to his sexuality, but he backs up that aspect of his image with winning medals at the Olympics. Once again, since this seems to be so hard for many to understand, the Olympics is a sporting event. And while I agree that the media is also fully to blame for picking and choosing athletes that have the most sex appeal to follow (realistically, they choose the athletes with the most compelling stories to follow around, which includes sex appeal), it does not mean we do not have the capacity to realize that there can be blame on more than one person.

For every media outlet that wants to focus on an athlete's sexuality, there is the subject athlete that has every ability to disregard attention based upon their sexuality. No one is proclaiming that these men or women never use their sexuality but merely that sexuality should come second to athletic achievement.





And your quote from post # 50:


You apparently think that the author carries a fundamentalist attitude about the position women should hold in society, thus the author must hate women who don't fit that model. Nowhere in the article, and I ask you to find me a quote since you claim that if you peel the article's outer layer, you find that the author believes Jones is a slut, does it even hint that there's anything wrong with Lolo Jones being a devout Christian or a virgin. Instead, he points out that it is hypocritical (see argument above) to point to your faith and your piety and yet pose nude. Hell, that's not even the main point of the article as it's evidence used to support the author's main point that sexuality should not be the focus of reporting at the Olympics.

I patiently await your rebuttal.
Her personal views were given coverage because the media deemed it noteworthy to report upon that aspect of her life when she was questioned. Furthermore espousing religious views and posing for nude photos is not a big deal.

It just may be that she has no issues with the her body, and the human body in general similar to countless of other Christians throughout history who posed nude, painted, drew, chiseled, etc nudes, discussed and wrote about and celebrated the human nude form in poetry, etc. This view also does does not come into conflict with her belief that staying a virgin until she meets the "right guy" is personally important to her as a Christian.Furthermore you'll find a crap load of denominations which include original sects such as Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc who have varying views on the subject which often disagree with each other on numerous levels.

In the end the issue about her photos is nothing more then a matter of opinion based on how people interpret their own views on the human body in relation to their espoused religious belief and her personal views. It does not speak anything about her own personal character as individual or her ability as a athlete.

However any "increased" coverage on these issues lies on the heads of the news media who put them out. So if the author of this article truly has a bone to pick then it should be addressed to the media "professionals" who deem what is acceptable to cover. If this coverage actually did upstage other athletes then the author needs to address his colleagues not Lolo.

In addition her credentials for being at the Olympics were deemed more then acceptable by those who made the selection process. Thus insinuating the question over her credentials presumes that those involved in the selection process for the US track team were working with a selective bias based toward a runners looks rather then their actual performance but we all know this is false and that she did indeed earn her spot.

After all this is a woman that has won 3 NCAA championships, placed 1st twice and 2nd once in world track championships. While placing 4th in her event at the Olympics does not hold the same weight of "racking up medals" it is still an accomplishment in her athletic career and in a sport where no one is guaranteed a win. However if another athlete deserved more coverage because of their medals and wins then it should be the responsibility of his fellow colleagues to move on and shift the cover over to those athletes instead of Lolo. Attacking her is pointless and gives all the appearance of smear job by report who has an underlying current of contempt toward Lolo, her espoused religious beliefs, her reason for keeping her virginity and the fact that she is comfortable enough with herself and these aforementioned views to pose nude/semi-nude and while still be true to her personal vows and beliefs.

Let me quote Merriam Webster for you along with what you wrote in a previous post:


Quote:
Definition of MISOGYNY

: a hatred of women
Yup....that sums up the underlying current of insinuations drawn up by this author's views. Then again this is why he himself has also been roundly criticized by others in the media for his article.
 
Last edited:

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
What kind of asshole takes issue with her virginity? Very few people who are seriously hot (she is) her age are virgins, and she is proud of that. Many would find it inspiring. It's not a choice most of us make but the NY times article speaks of "virgin for hire". How many other virgin women athletes are there in her age group? It's a nasty piece and the author is clearly butthurt over something.

She as a person does seem to suffer from a lot of self-doubt and struggles with it. I noticed that after she spoke about heaters in her opening heat IIRC. I was sad for her frankly that somebody at her level still had what seemed like such doubt about her abilities.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY