I do hope you only mean that in reference to the question, which is a bit dated in the first place. Wouldn't be surprised to see a Chile miner question pop up, but it's not like these are meant to be representative of the whole of LJ, which you seem to be implying. And I have no doubt that LJ has megabytes of stuff about the Chilean miners, and almost all of it in support or admiration.

Not that the miners had it all rosy anyway - the reason they are keeping silent about the first 17 days before they were found is apparently because they couldn't stand each other and kept getting into fistfights. They split into three groups that bunked and worked separately to avoid each other.

But this has nothing to do with gender - if you are stuck under hundreds of feet of rock, with scant hope of survival, you are entitled to get a bit frustrated and angry over it, especially if you've had issues with the other guys down there before.

Just, don't venerate people for no good reason, and especially not for an agenda.

Sorry to start trouble. (Again.) I never mean to, it just... happens.

I'm taking issue with the (highly ambiguous) phrasing of the question.

And what's wrong with supporting someone by believing in them? Only that, in many forms of media, women take no active role beyond passively believing in someone, and doing nothing to aid them beyond that rather abstract belief. I object to that. (I do not believe that the movie is one of these scenarios, but the LJ question was ambiguous). If you don't, then well...

The question is "How has the strength and support of an extraordinary woman helped you achieve an impossible goal?" It says nothing about being passive or active. Depending on the reader's interpretation, it could be either. I don't see why you think it's necessarily passive support.

Also, I think believing in someone isn't necessarily a passive role. If you're attempting something impossible, like the question says, simply having someone in your corner can be very powerful. I don't think it's demeaning to suggest as much.

As for emphasis, it's just one question, based on one situation in one movie. It's not like LJ is insisting that women can only ever take support roles and nothing else, so I don't think there's any call to accuse them of being sexist.

~Neshomeh

What were you expecting?

The background of the horse involved her to a great deal. She decided to breed and get the horse, she's the one who hired the trainer, the jockey, all of that. She decided to push which resulted in the horse getting that far in the first place.

How do you call that passive support?

Is it because she didn't ride the horse herself? Or didn't do the majority of the training?

There are different roles for everything, and trying to make a false comparison here, as you are doing, is misleading and sexist in and of itself.

Not all roles a person can take are going to be active, nor should they be.

This is not the main issue at stake, but the Triple Crown is definitely only for extreme athletes, as in horses AND jockeys.

I got the impression the question was discussing the jockey - and if it isn't, it's very badly phrased.

Also, the question itself is still asking about how women have supported the reader, so the question is still a problem.