New Article by Gillian Mounsey: A New Perspective

[Gunnhild Bruno]

Social mores are enforced in both obvious and subtle ways. Sometimes the brown shirts will just bluntly call you out. Sometimes, it's just a dirty look or a subtle dismissal. Either way, it's our nature to want to belong (yes, even you iconoclasts) to a group and many times it's in our best interest to protect ourselves by putting our tail between our legs and going along with the program.

People who don’t feel loyalty or who do not value community are sociopaths. Suppressing or softening your own dissenting opinions about unimportant details for the sake of group harmony is normal and usually healthy. But there’s obviously a limit. If you can’t speak up to your group about something that’s important to you, you should seriously ask whether there is something wrong with you. And if a bunch of people in your group have the same problem, there is definitely something wrong with the group.

Look at "poor" msingh. Sure can say stupid shit and can an asshole to boot, but everyone rails on him in part because he is questioning the great teacher Rippetoe. Maybe it's not the greatest example, but it's something to consider.

It’s a pretty terrible example, not only for the reasons that Kyle details, but because the model is totally different. CF sells a brand identity first and education (of sometimes questionable quality, from what I understand) a distant second. Rip and other guys like him sell education first. You could look at it cynically and say that this is because they don’t have brand recognition, but from where I sit, it seems that guys like Rip, Dan John, etc. have no intention of becoming brands or movements.

If what you’re buying is a brand, and you build your business and your community on that brand, you better not have a falling out with the guys selling and controlling the brand, or you’re pretty much royally screwed. If, on the other hand, what you’re buying is education, and you’re able to turn those lessons into knowledge, that can’t be taken away from you, no matter what goes down between you and your teachers.

[fructa]

Anyway, I wrote on my gym's blog yesterday about how stupid it was that they put swimming in CF games this year. (I'm a former swimmer and frankly, insulted). One of the coaches basically told me the blog was for sharing workouts, not opinions. This is complete BS because everyone makes all kinds of comments about this and that, but obviously what I said (and how I said it) hit a nerve for him and he wanted to shut me down. He can go fuck himself. Luckily I have plenty of support there and I don't need to concern myself too much with offending him, but I thought it was interesting turn of events in light of this conversation.

Rob - I feel like the individual in question was out of line when he told you the blog was for sharing workouts and not opinions, but with the exception of the last paragraph, his response to you primarily had to do with you implicitly belittling running as a sport that is not technique-driven, when his wife and many other gym-goers are pretty committed runners. He agreed with you that the swim was not a good games component. You seem to be implying here that his response was coming from a "don't question the crossfit overlords" point of view, which it clearly wasn't...

[Moving_Target]

In the same vein:

Jocelyn Forrest and kicking the Metcon Habit

http://www.performancemenu.com/artic...?articleID=118

I have no dog in this hunt but the story was quite similar and felt it should be mentioned too.

[Rob Israel]

You seem to be implying here that his response was coming from a "don't question the crossfit overlords" point of view, which it clearly wasn't...

It was definitely not my intention to imply that and I know this had nothing to do with the "CF overlords," but the fact was that I was called out publicly by a person of authority on the blog and told to post my numbers and not say anything critical. And yes, his last paragraph was completely out of line.

Also, his post reinforces what I was saying when comparing fitness to religion. I insulted the religion of running and incurred the wrath of one of the priests. I hurt the runners' feelings. Why? Because they have invested so much in running.

And I will admit, having done over 1,000 sets of lower bar back squats during the last 12 months, that I too would be offended if someone belittled a "real" squat in favor of fronts squats! That sounds silly when I write it, but the fact of the matter is that we are incredibly attached to our notions and approaches to training and when they are called into question, we can easily go into attack mode.

People who don’t feel loyalty or who do not value community are sociopaths. Suppressing or softening your own dissenting opinions about unimportant details for the sake of group harmony is normal and usually healthy. But there’s obviously a limit. If you can’t speak up to your group about something that’s important to you, you should seriously ask whether there is something wrong with you. And if a bunch of people in your group have the same problem, there is definitely something wrong with the group.

Spar, I found this first paragraph very insightful, but we are mostly talking about conflicting values and there doesn't have to be anything "wrong" with either the group or the individual for a conflict to arise, just a divergence of values. Which is why we don't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table with the in-laws.

In terms of the msingh comparison, perhaps that was stupid, but Rip, DJ, Robb Wolf, etc (ironically all CF heretics), don't have to have a "brand" or be selling a package in order to have a social "wolf pack" protecting the ideology. And there is an ideology. These occur in social groups even without the leadership's encouragement. Granted, CF HQ has way more at stake but people kill for ideas in addition to money.

[Roland Conde]

Perhaps because it was boring?

As confessions go, it left a lot to be desired.

As a celebration of “herself,” it doesn’t compare even with Oprah, not to mention Whitman. Michael Oher’s story is much more compelling, but Michael Lewis may just be the better writer.

In a 5142 word document the word “I” appears 257 times. The word “my” appears 106 times. The word “me” appears 45 times. The relatively unusual word “myself” is used 11 times. We all have our problems, the trick is not to wear them on our sleeves.

“Those who know, do not say; those who say, do not know.”

As an article that encourages women to free themselves from Hollywood or Vogue’s aesthetics, it seems simply to want to replace it with something else. Instead of a model’s body, the writer now seems to want a weightlifter’s body. For the moment.

As an ex-CrossFitter converted to SS, she sounds like nothing so much as an ex-smoker or someone who’s given up drinking or been “saved.” Dawkins and Hitchens do it better, but “not boring” isn’t the same as “not annoying.”

The piece seems egocentric and bossy and just another low-intensity feminist screed.

The fact is that being a professional athlete (even at the university level) is dangerous to one’s health. Whether CrossFit is a sport or not is irrelevant. There are Americans who don’t think bicycle racing is a “sport” or that jogging IS. MR has said that athletes don’t care about looks, they care about performance. It’s a bit more sinister than that. Professional athletes don’t care about health, either. They care about winning (and money.) The fact is that most people aren’t really “athletes” - - just as most military people aren’t “warriors.” These have become overworked words, like “awesome” or “amazing” or “terrible.” Those words have lost their true meanings, and "warrior" and "athlete" are on the same path. Do real athletes “giggle?”

There is nothing wrong with “mere exercise;” most people could do with a bit more of it. Whether one’s exercise amounts to “training” depends on whether one has a goal that requires it. Squatting a PB is not enough to get one to the top of a mountain. Strength training can be useful; it can even be an interesting hobby. But whether it is useful for a lawyer or interesting for an accountant or as compelling a hobby as photography is merely a question of taste.

Please don’t let the SS Forums become a halfway house for recovering crossfitters. The “couch thread” does a much funnier (albeit grossly obscene) and better job of bashing CrossFit. SS should try to rise above that.

And I hope MR doesn’t covet GG’s “millions.” The books are a solid legacy. GG doesn’t strike one as being very happy or content. Alcoholism and womanizing might appeal to teenagers, but they are extremely unbecoming in adults. GG just seems like Hugh Hefner “with a slightly hipper rap.”

We need to be careful that SS doesn’t become the same sort of “cool-aid” as CF has.

“There are no victims, only volunteers.”

I'm surprised no one addressed this post.

You're entitled to your opinion, so I'm going to respond to mainly one aspect of your post:

There is nothing wrong with “mere exercise;” most people could do with a bit more of it. Whether one’s exercise amounts to “training” depends on whether one has a goal that requires it. Squatting a PB is not enough to get one to the top of a mountain. Strength training can be useful; it can even be an interesting hobby. But whether it is useful for a lawyer or interesting for an accountant or as compelling a hobby as photography is merely a question of taste.

I would disagree. Why would you say that people could do with a bit more of "mere exercise"? Do you mean people could do with a bit more physical activity to improve health? Why is rote exercise without some sort of direction or goal favorable to training? I would say that if you're concerned with your health and you want to engage in physical activity to ameliorate some aspect of it, you've defined a goal and can orient your training to this end. Exercise is a waste of time, comparatively. Further, I would argue that everyone, regardless of vocation, could do with some level of physical activity to at least stay healthy.

That is all.

[Gunnhild Bruno]

Spar, I found this first paragraph very insightful, but we are mostly talking about conflicting values and there doesn't have to be anything "wrong" with either the group or the individual for a conflict to arise, just a divergence of values. Which is why we don't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table with the in-laws.

I’m not saying there’s something wrong with conflict arising. Sometimes, that’s the way things have to go. For matters that are important enough, sometimes you have to break with a group. Which is my point.

Not talking about about religion or politics at your nephew’s birthday party is just good manners. Not broaching the subject of your spouse’s destructive addiction or something with his/her family because you’re afraid the in-laws will boycott Thanksgiving dinner is messed up. Yes, it happens all the time. But it’s still fucked up.

Likewise, avoiding arguing about politics or religion with people at your gym or your gym’s website is just good sense. But shutting up when you know your coaches are programming stuff/promoting stuff/glorifying stuff that will certainly cause serious harm to people is messed up. And when a lot of people in your organization know that the organization is doing things that will harm people but they are afraid to speak up and they still want to remain with the group, that means there is something seriously wrong with your organization.

[fructa]

Also, his post reinforces what I was saying when comparing fitness to religion. I insulted the religion of running and incurred the wrath of one of the priests. I hurt the runners' feelings. Why? Because they have invested so much in running.

Right. And you got incredibly pissed when a bunch of CF'ers tried to swim without proper respsect for that sport, because you have a lot invested in swimming. Just saying - there is absolutely no difference, here, between your reaction to the swim thing and that coach's reaction to your post (he told you to sit down and shut up, and you came to a different forum and drew an analogy between him and a nazi) - so it's a pretty terrible example of CF affiliates suppressing opposing thought. It's just knee-jerk reactionary bullshit on both sides.

...the fact of the matter is that we are incredibly attached to our notions and approaches to training and when they are called into question, we can easily go into attack mode.

Exactly.