,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/6 This article is a perfect example of why the media has lost its credibility. The headline is obviously meant to give the (false) impression that she was denied her win due to unfair sexist discrimination. The reality is much less disturbing. edition.cnn.com/2019/05/05/uk/…
2/6 First of all, she wasn't denied the marathon win. She was denied a novelty Guinness World Record for racing *while wearing a nurse's outfit*. This is obviously very different from being denied the actual marathon world record, as the headline implies.
3/6 Secondly, she was informed BEFOREHAND what the criteria were to be eligible for the award, and she knowingly chose *NOT* to meet those criteria. There is nothing unfair about being denied an award if you deliberately chose not to follow the rules required to earn that reward.
4/6 Instead of an honest representation of the facts, the media prefers to spin this as a story of sexist oppression; a woman being treated unfairly due to outdated rules based on sexist norms. And that's why so many people simply don't trust them anymore.
5/6 It turns out that due to the outcry over this terribly "sexist" decision, they decided to reverse their decision and grant her the record title. nytimes.com/2019/05/08/wor…
6/6 But how is that fair to the women who did follow the rules, and ran the race in a skirt, which is far more difficult to accomplish than running it in scrubs? Why doesn't that unfairness to other women matter at all?
Clarification: I don't disagree that it's an outdated view to think that a nurse has to wear a skirt, and that
the rules should adjust to reflect our new standards. But such a change in the rules needs to happen BEFORE the race begins, not decided after.
the rules should adjust to reflect our new standards. But such a change in the rules needs to happen BEFORE the race begins, not decided after.
