Nike is famously opaque about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. They have never even responded to any request I've ever made for information, comment or interview
In 2023, Nike also partnered with a cringe gay guy Dylan Mulvaney, who had spotted an opportunity to rake in dollars by claiming to be a woman, to sing the praise of Nike's women's leggings and sports bras.
I have no personal antipathy toward Nike. I don't want to see them fail as a company out of some intense dislike. I don't understand where their many many anti-woman business and marketing decisions came from, and I want them to stop. They have, or had, enough money and clout to actually shape policy in the sports industry, and they have used that to harm women and women's sports. I want that to be exposed, and to stop. Yes, their decision to have a man dance around in a sports bra rightly sent their stock off a cliff. Their are many many factors in the market value losing 80% in the last 5 years, but their anti-woman decisions and investments cannot be helping
I just watched your interview---and you were fine. I know that there are some aspects that you would change (we are always our worst critics) but you still did well. Truly. You made critically important points about Nike and they were effective. I have been boycotting Nike for years now---a company which cannot define who a woman is and would not admit their funding support for research on athletic performance of children poisoned by puberty blockers, and then, of course, this ridiculous "support" program for girls.THANK YOU --- it was wonderful for you to highlight this "coaching" campaign.
Sarah, I watched the Fox News clip. It wasn't so bad. But, I agree it would be better if you just keep looking into the camera as you make your points.
Since you described your on-camera performance using the adjective as autistic, I was reminded of the satirical magazine The Onion's autistic reporter. See several short videos of him reporting the news:
Just a small thing: you use the word coup de gras, in "the coup de gras of a poisonously misogynistic campaign." It's actually coup de grâce. Grâce here means mercy. Gras, in french, means fat (both as noun and adjective), as in foie gras (fatty liver). When I hear coup de grâce, I always think of the movie They shoot horses, don't they? (1969), with Michael Sarrazin and Jane Fonda as down-on their luck people who enter a marathon dance competition during the depression era. You know, when a horse has sustained a certain injury, to end it's misery, it might just be killed out of mercy - that's giving it the coup de grâce. Well, the marathon dancer in that film were not that lucky. (That's why I think it has this title. In my mother tongue, the title of the film, translated into English is "Only horses get the coup de grâce")
The gaslighting involved in what you describe, it's crazy making. I just listened to a podcast interview Helen Joyce gave last month. She said, among other things:
(32:05) I had thought I was writing the book (Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. 2021) to get it out of my system. And it turned out that every day the crazy just continued. That's still the case, by the way. I've been doing this since 2017 one way or another, and every day something still astonishes me. There is no bottom to this hole, it appears.
(33:15) I mean, like you, I think this is the most unbelievably dumb, literally the most dumb belief system the world has ever come up with. And nasty too. Dumb and nasty.
As the last question, the interviewer asks Helen Joyce: Can you just help Americans understand how this ideology, which is generally unpopular, became so prevalent among the ruling class, whatever that is these days, in the United Kingdom?
Her answer:
(56:42) I mean, maybe not so different from in the United States. I think it got adopted probably first in universities because universities are very international and it was already in American universities, and America's universities are the world's largest and richest, and the ones that produce the most research, including in ridiculous subjects, as well as good science. So before I think anyone else noticed, it was the case that from the 1990s on, there were growing numbers of people who were doing, I mean, frankly, terrible academic work based on the idea that sex isn't real and gender is. And those people, that's a very powerful position to be in, because if you are teaching young people in universities and writing and producing almost all research, you're genuinely the thought leaders in your country. I mean, I think that a lot, a lot, a lot of people over the last 20 years sent their children off to university, not realising that universities have changed enormously and are continuing to change and that their children will be taught ridiculous things. And especially in departments that produce teachers, social workers, HR staff, people in charities, people in publishing, people who go into the civil service, people who want to be politicians. I think mathematics [her own field, she has a doctorate in math] has stayed relatively sane, but mathematics for all that mathematicians are used in all sorts of places and help to keep the world running, we don't tend to shape the public discourse in the way that, sadly, Judith Butler has. So, you know, we were without knowing, I think we were for at least 20 years, we've been educating our children in something hateful. But if we had known what we were doing, we would absolutely not have gone along with it because it's as mad as sending your child off to a cult that promotes child sacrifice and self-harm and destroys women's lives and all the rest. So those people are now grown-ups, you know, they're baked in. We can't undo that. I think some of them are going to rebel against it. I think a lot of them are starting to rebel against it. But we have a bunch of indoctrinated people in our society now that we have to reckon with. And they're not going anywhere except progressing through the sorts of jobs that they very disproportionately do, like social worker and HR. Because it's the university class, absolutely the university class. But of course, the university class become teachers now that all teachers are graduates. Teachers believe this stuff too, so they're teaching it in school now. And I think that's the same in America. Even in states where they're not meant to, they still are. Because a lot of teachers now, because they've been trained to believe this, they believe that their job is to inculcate social justice. They're not there to pass on the wisdom of their society to the next generation, which would have been what previous generations of teachers thought their job was. They're there to turn out citizens who will regard their lives as being about constant protest and overturning all established norms and so on. And we haven't got other people to teach children as long as we use graduates and graduates from the sorts of courses that have been most infected, disproportionately as well. So that is the class system I notice most. It's really about education. That's the vector and it's the differentiator.
A freely accessible transcript of the interview is here:
There's a lot here, but I love the quotes from Helen Joyce. Tbh, I could listen to her read the phone book but the bonus is that she's so clear and articulate about how on earth we got to this societal madness. What is happening in Australia is positively chilling. Naturally it's not covered by American msm at all.
So, exactly who are the people (or person) at Nike pushing this lie?
I'm boycotting Nike already.
Nike is famously opaque about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. They have never even responded to any request I've ever made for information, comment or interview
In 2023, Nike also partnered with a cringe gay guy Dylan Mulvaney, who had spotted an opportunity to rake in dollars by claiming to be a woman, to sing the praise of Nike's women's leggings and sports bras.
I have no personal antipathy toward Nike. I don't want to see them fail as a company out of some intense dislike. I don't understand where their many many anti-woman business and marketing decisions came from, and I want them to stop. They have, or had, enough money and clout to actually shape policy in the sports industry, and they have used that to harm women and women's sports. I want that to be exposed, and to stop. Yes, their decision to have a man dance around in a sports bra rightly sent their stock off a cliff. Their are many many factors in the market value losing 80% in the last 5 years, but their anti-woman decisions and investments cannot be helping
Sarah,
I just watched your interview---and you were fine. I know that there are some aspects that you would change (we are always our worst critics) but you still did well. Truly. You made critically important points about Nike and they were effective. I have been boycotting Nike for years now---a company which cannot define who a woman is and would not admit their funding support for research on athletic performance of children poisoned by puberty blockers, and then, of course, this ridiculous "support" program for girls.THANK YOU --- it was wonderful for you to highlight this "coaching" campaign.
Sarah, I watched the Fox News clip. It wasn't so bad. But, I agree it would be better if you just keep looking into the camera as you make your points.
Since you described your on-camera performance using the adjective as autistic, I was reminded of the satirical magazine The Onion's autistic reporter. See several short videos of him reporting the news:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+onion+autistic+reporter
Just a small thing: you use the word coup de gras, in "the coup de gras of a poisonously misogynistic campaign." It's actually coup de grâce. Grâce here means mercy. Gras, in french, means fat (both as noun and adjective), as in foie gras (fatty liver). When I hear coup de grâce, I always think of the movie They shoot horses, don't they? (1969), with Michael Sarrazin and Jane Fonda as down-on their luck people who enter a marathon dance competition during the depression era. You know, when a horse has sustained a certain injury, to end it's misery, it might just be killed out of mercy - that's giving it the coup de grâce. Well, the marathon dancer in that film were not that lucky. (That's why I think it has this title. In my mother tongue, the title of the film, translated into English is "Only horses get the coup de grâce")
The gaslighting involved in what you describe, it's crazy making. I just listened to a podcast interview Helen Joyce gave last month. She said, among other things:
(32:05) I had thought I was writing the book (Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. 2021) to get it out of my system. And it turned out that every day the crazy just continued. That's still the case, by the way. I've been doing this since 2017 one way or another, and every day something still astonishes me. There is no bottom to this hole, it appears.
(33:15) I mean, like you, I think this is the most unbelievably dumb, literally the most dumb belief system the world has ever come up with. And nasty too. Dumb and nasty.
As the last question, the interviewer asks Helen Joyce: Can you just help Americans understand how this ideology, which is generally unpopular, became so prevalent among the ruling class, whatever that is these days, in the United Kingdom?
Her answer:
(56:42) I mean, maybe not so different from in the United States. I think it got adopted probably first in universities because universities are very international and it was already in American universities, and America's universities are the world's largest and richest, and the ones that produce the most research, including in ridiculous subjects, as well as good science. So before I think anyone else noticed, it was the case that from the 1990s on, there were growing numbers of people who were doing, I mean, frankly, terrible academic work based on the idea that sex isn't real and gender is. And those people, that's a very powerful position to be in, because if you are teaching young people in universities and writing and producing almost all research, you're genuinely the thought leaders in your country. I mean, I think that a lot, a lot, a lot of people over the last 20 years sent their children off to university, not realising that universities have changed enormously and are continuing to change and that their children will be taught ridiculous things. And especially in departments that produce teachers, social workers, HR staff, people in charities, people in publishing, people who go into the civil service, people who want to be politicians. I think mathematics [her own field, she has a doctorate in math] has stayed relatively sane, but mathematics for all that mathematicians are used in all sorts of places and help to keep the world running, we don't tend to shape the public discourse in the way that, sadly, Judith Butler has. So, you know, we were without knowing, I think we were for at least 20 years, we've been educating our children in something hateful. But if we had known what we were doing, we would absolutely not have gone along with it because it's as mad as sending your child off to a cult that promotes child sacrifice and self-harm and destroys women's lives and all the rest. So those people are now grown-ups, you know, they're baked in. We can't undo that. I think some of them are going to rebel against it. I think a lot of them are starting to rebel against it. But we have a bunch of indoctrinated people in our society now that we have to reckon with. And they're not going anywhere except progressing through the sorts of jobs that they very disproportionately do, like social worker and HR. Because it's the university class, absolutely the university class. But of course, the university class become teachers now that all teachers are graduates. Teachers believe this stuff too, so they're teaching it in school now. And I think that's the same in America. Even in states where they're not meant to, they still are. Because a lot of teachers now, because they've been trained to believe this, they believe that their job is to inculcate social justice. They're not there to pass on the wisdom of their society to the next generation, which would have been what previous generations of teachers thought their job was. They're there to turn out citizens who will regard their lives as being about constant protest and overturning all established norms and so on. And we haven't got other people to teach children as long as we use graduates and graduates from the sorts of courses that have been most infected, disproportionately as well. So that is the class system I notice most. It's really about education. That's the vector and it's the differentiator.
A freely accessible transcript of the interview is here:
https://www.osborneink.com/p/helen-joyce-has-a-long-and-weary
There's a lot here, but I love the quotes from Helen Joyce. Tbh, I could listen to her read the phone book but the bonus is that she's so clear and articulate about how on earth we got to this societal madness. What is happening in Australia is positively chilling. Naturally it's not covered by American msm at all.
Bill Bowerman must be turning over in his grave at what Nike has become.