I’m going to have to add the Chickenwingman Duathlon to my list of must-do races.
You missed Mullet Man on the Florida-Alabama border. This year’s edition was the last event held before they tore down the Florabama http://www.florabama.com/ (Hurricane damage was worse than first thought. They’re rebuilding this summer)
“What is it with this sport’s obsession with a man?”
Interesting question and valid observation.
First off, as I see it, the term “man” as used liberally in our sport is a colloquilism for “mankind”, i.e., no specific gender but the species as a whole. Therefore, any gender is an “Ironman” or “Embrunman” or whatever upon completion of said event.
Secondly, and perhaps more profoundly, this vernacular speaks to the individual nature of the sport and hence a lot of its appeal. No doubt, a huge number or participants hope to garner some sense of individual capability or capacity or power through their involvement in endurance sports. Using event names like “Ironman” only instills a greater sense of credibility among the participants and the obesrvers as opposed to naming the event the “Hawaii Individual Endurance Multisport Classic” or some such less catchy name.
This morning (as with all mornings) I was in line at Starbucks at oh-dark thirty. I had an Ironman hat on- although I generally don’t wear such things (not that there is anything wrong with that). The women behind the counter asked me, “So, you’re an Ironman?” I was like, “Ahhh, no, I work at the bike shop. I did Ironman a few times though…”
It is a part of the language, and one of many subtle nuances that make the “xxxxxman” marketing appeal of triathlon so powerful.
If you look at the romance languages, the use of the masculine as a collective for groups of either all masculine parties or for groups of both masculine and feminie parties is the standard.
I think adding a layer of abstraction to speech to attempt to desexualize a collective is absurd, obtuse, and unnecessary. It’s frankly, in my mind, just an attempt to politicize something which is not in need of politicizing–the rules of grammar.
Kittycat -
I did not mean to diss Cinci (well, not too much). I was there as a UC student, living in an apartment (basically a tenement) in Clifton for four years, so that probably skewed my impressions quite a bit! It is a pretty city with nice neighborhoods and much going for it, and I always enjoy my visits to see friends.
I totally agree with this.
So far there are two new “Ironxxxxx” that I really like…
Ironhomo
Ironvagina
So far there are two new “Ironxxxxx” that I really like…
Ironhomo
Ironvagina
Ok how about “IronDude” for the SoCal surfter types and “IronBitch” for those uptight Long Island snotty types?
Don’t forget “IronGents,” which actually is an Ironman subculture (I think you have to be 60 to qualify). I believe there is a companion “IronLadies” as well.
That’s a case in which the gender-neutral “man” has been replaced by a gender-specific term.
i agree. i mean, just because the race is a 1/2 or full iron distance dosn’t mean you have to call it ____man. look at wildflower long course, a successful 1/2 iron distance race with non of that stupid ___man business. I really think it is to make us feel tough for doing this shit to ourselves.
on a side note, i don’t think terry davis would go for “WildMan triathlon”, that’s not really his thing.
Don’t forget “IronGents,” which actually is an Ironman subculture (I think you have to be 60 to qualify)
Shouldn’t that be “Irongeezers”
.
please. this doesn’t even deserve a response. adding an abstract layer…good god. that’s the lamest excuse I’ve heard yet.
You know, I find it funny that all the Hollywood references to futuristic military type organizations that include women, they officers are called “sir” regardless of gender…
And how about this – There’s Footlocker, and Lady Footlocker. At the mall that’s less than 1/4 mile from my place, these two stores are across the aisle from each other – that’s right, you look out of one store and you’re looking right INTO the other. There’s women’s shoes and clothing in Footlocker, but no men’s shoes or clothing in Lady Footlocker… And to go along with that, we have all these women-only events (Reebok and Danskin, plus the Race for the Cure series (men can only do the “non-competetive” event))… But if we DARED to have a men’s only event, there would be such public outcry…
Excellent! A philosophical discussion! Seriously, I love them.
Anyway, while I find it somewhat difficult to fully articulate my position, I feel that it merits further elucidation if all you see fit to deem it as is a ‘lame excuse’.
So here’s my thing–using the masculine form of a word a non-gender-specific collective is the standard form throughout the Western world (romance languages, Latin, etc). The rules of grammar, while proscriptive in the modern times, became what they are today as descriptive rules evolved ‘back in the day’. What I mean by that is that our current rules of grammar are only the codification of usage as it stood at the time that early attempts were made to codify our language, both in scope (ie dictionaries) and in usage (ie rules of grammar). Such rules were created to ensure a standard usage to ensure that communication between the largest number of parties could be held with assurances that meaning was transferred accurately.
In other words, the rules of grammar were not developed to enforce some modern day hegemony of the stereotypical ‘dead white male’–ie someone did not decide to make the male form of a noun be used as the collective to enforce some idea that women are not as good as men–but rather these rules were created to codify and document existing usage to ensure that all individuals–dead or living, white or not, male or not–could be reasonably sure that they could, by following those rules, communicate effectively.
That is not at all a ‘lame excuse’ as you posit. Rather, the idea that usage of the male form ought to be rewritten because of modern politics vis-a-vis ideas of partiarchy in society–that is what ought to be seen as ‘lame’.
Still needing…Gulfman, Wineman, Onionman, Dannonman
.
Using “-man” collectively as either a group of males or a mixed group of females and males leads to uncertainty. Consider the outdated “policeman” (or “fireman” or “workman”). Perhaps at the time the rules of grammer were codified the use of “policeman” made sense. Everyone knew this meant a male involved in law enforcement. Females were not part of the equation. This is simply no longer true. If I say to you “This woman was sexually assaulted. She would like to see a policeman” then you are left to wonder whether a male or female policeman is needed or whether it matters. One can now say: “She needs to see a police officer” (male or female); “She needs to see a female police officer” (just female); or even “She needs to see a male police officer”. The new approach gives greater clarity over the old.
This is not necessarily politics, just language adapting to a changing reality.
And when Marisol finishes Ironman Kona, do you think there’s going to be any confusion as to her gender?
Maybe we should strike the word “mankind” from the dictionary. Or really put on our P.C. hats and replace it spelled “mynkind.”
Your police officer anology is a valid and a realistic adaptation to our changing reality. Whether this adaptation is appropriate for the entire language is my gripe.
As Ginsu and others have pointed out, the word Man is meant as Mankind, I think:)
No, but I don’t think it matters in this context. If you finish an Ironman you are an “Ironman” (or “Ironman finisher” if you prefer) whether you are male or female. It is generic and thus the sex of the finisher shouldn’t be important unless you want to know whether Marisol was the female Ironman champion or not. 
The argument given by Ginsu Dave seemed to centre on improved clarity of language. I was suggesting clarity can be improved in many cases by getting rid of “-man” in favour of gender neutral terms. I think Ironman is already sufficiently gender neutral. Any race using a derivative of “-man” is probably simply looking to “pass-off” on its success.
Oh my, look at the time. Better start being a good worker again…
Hey Fred,
Since you don’t answer your e-mails in regards to USAT BOD issues, I just want you to know, because of that, and other matters dealing with the BOD, I will no longer support your races by participating or volunteering any more and my feelings in regards to it, will not be kept to myself when with fellow triathletes. Thanks for your service though.
George McKenzie