Female Shotputter Perfectly Explains What’s Wrong with Nike’s Sponsorship of Dylan Mulvaney
Defense Dept. ROASTED For Failing 5th Audit & Biden Finally Ends COVID Emergency!
April 11, 2023
Dalai Lama Claims That Asking A Kid To “Suck My Tongue” Was “Innocent And Playful”
April 11, 2023A lot of people have been pointing out lately that the right’s anger over trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney is playing directly into the left’s hands. And while there’s some merit to that argument, I personally think the side of reason has gone a little too hard on that strategy in recent years and that’s a contributing factor to why Dylan Mulvaney is even a thing.
So I’m gonna keep pointing out what’s wrong with people falling over themselves to throw money and freebies and kudos and their dignity at this person– or, rather, I’m gonna YASSSSS QWEEN the people who do.
Like Amelia Strickler. Strickler is a woman (like, a biological one) who shotputs for the UK. She recently wrote an op-ed for the Daily Mail explaining why she has a problem with Nike’s recent decision to have Mulvaney sign on as a spokesperson for the brand. And it’s not because she’s anti-trans. It’s because she’s pro-woman (and YES, there’s a difference).
“For many years, I had two jobs to support my shot putting career. Recently I found a private sponsor through my athletics club Thames Valley Harriers, which enables me to keep competing.
But most female athletes don’t have that advantage. Women get 1 per cent of all sports sponsorship money – and yet to see Nike willing to shell out however many thousands it is to Mulvaney – who, remember, has not fully ‘transitioned’ to female – is utterly demoralising.”
That statistic blew my mind. And it doesn’t even make sense the way it makes sense for the women’s soccer team to make less than the men’s team. Women are half of the population, which means roughly half the athletes in the world are going to be women. Which means half of Nike’s– and other sportswear retailers’– customers are WOMEN. So are they severely underpaid or egregiously underrepresented? Neither’s good. And neither excuses handing over even a penny of that 1% to someone who’s neither a biological woman nor an athlete.
But Strickler is realistic about who’s to blame here, and it’s not Mulvaney.
“Nike likes to harp on about how it champions women: last year it announced an ‘Athletes Think Tank’ to help ‘serve today’s women athletes’, while a 2021 campaign praised mums for being ‘the toughest athletes’.
All well and good – but contrast these warm words with Nike’s actions towards the female athletes it actually sponsored. Women such as Olympic runner Alysia Montano were subject to ‘performance-based reductions’ – amounting to a 70 per cent pay cut – when they were unable to race due to being pregnant or having just given birth. In other words, penalised for being a woman.”
Nike doesn’t care about women. If they did, they’d follow Strickler’s advice:
“It would be better to invest some of the money given to attention-seeking influencers such as Mulvaney to develop better sportswear for biological women.
In nearly a decade of competing at the top level, I have yet to find a decent sports bra: I have to wear two at once.
Modelling a bra on someone who has a male torso is an insult to those of us with female bodies.”
As someone who’s never had a sports bra that fits, I concur. It’s bad enough seeing them modeled on AA cup women whose support needs are met by a worn out wifebeater, let alone a person who not only doesn’t have breasts– oh, excuse me, gal pals— but also wasn’t designed to.
Like, can that be our line in the sand? Can the biological women of the world get decent, affordable, widely available bras, sports or otherwise, first, and then we can reopen the discussion about trans women in women’s spaces? Because right now it’s just a slap in the face.
It would still be a slap in the face.
5 Comments
While I agree with most everything you wrote, you statement, “Women are half of the population, which means roughly half the athletes in the world are going to be women,” is clmpletely ridiculous. Are women half the truck drivers, plumbers or soldiers in the world? Why are there only 12 WNBA teams compared to 30 in the NBA? And why is there no WNFL? If half the population is women, then the other half is men. Are men 50% of nurses and teachers?
This latest move on Nike’s part is proof that they’ve lost their heads just like the goddess they’re named after.
Having never worn a bra, except that one time – when I swear – I thought it was a half tee shirt. /sarc.
“I love the women’s movement, especially when walking behind it.”, Rush Limbaugh
In all seriousness, these companies are just mocking women, employing those who can only hope to mimic women as they will never be one. What is the difference between this and those claiming to be transracial or wearing blackface? Men in women sports should be treated the same.
This UK female athlete is absolutely right. I want to see more woman supporting our female athletes. These companies that care about the woke scores don’t care about them. If you were born with a penis you cannot participate in woman’s sports. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is not anti trans as every one who follows the Chicks know. It’s pro woman. The Independent Woman’s Network organization is working on this, check out their website.
Honestly, the worst case scenario for women’s sports is that organizations (college athletic departments, pro clubs, Olympic committees, etc.) advertise and advertise how woke they are and end up fielding entirely trans teams. At that point there’s a 50/50 shot that feminist groups actually realize how much they harmed themselves… or they crow about how “tolerant” they are and continue circling the drain signaling the death of women’s athletics. Just imagine it: a women’s Olympic team with nary an XX chromosome set among them.