Sport and Abortion

2

Comments

  • But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    Having sex isn't a human right, you know.
  • But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    Having sex isn't a human right, you know.
    Jesus, fucking Christ. Nearly for the entirety of human existence, males having the right to sex has been implicit and explicit. Now that women are in the convo, suddenly it isn't.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    Having sex isn't a human right, you know.
    Jesus, fucking Christ. Nearly for the entirety of human existence, males having the right to sex has been implicit and explicit. Now that women are in the convo, suddenly it isn't.

    I didn't have you pegged as a supporter of the Incel movement.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Did we not just try to have a whole thread on that very topic in Epiphanies? And it got canned, because you can't discuss men's roles and responsibilities in Epiphanies?

    You can have that conversation in Purg.

    In case you hadn't noticed, this is Epiphanies. It seems a bit rich to complain, in an Epiphanies thread, that nobody was talking about the responsibility of men with respect to pregnancy and child-reading in this discussion, shortly after a thread in Epiphanies that discussed exactly that was abruptly closed and ruled unacceptable for Epiphanies.

    The Ship has ruled that we can't discuss that topic here. For you to complain that we're not discussing that topic here doesn't seem very reasonable. This is precisely a consequence of that particular ruling.

  • But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    Having sex isn't a human right, you know.

    What does that have to do with anything? The vast majority of people in romantic relationships want to have sex with their partner. This is an entirely normal thing. If those people are a heterosexual couple, then almost certainly, one of the things they want is penetrative PIV sex. Again, this is what the vast majority of people want.

    Telling a woman "if you want to be competitive in sport, you'd better not have PIV sex" is both unnecessary and unreasonable.
  • On a related point, it is notable that the women’s decisions in that article are being impacted by the prevalent expectation of little support for a decision to have a baby, by members of their sport. Which I think is sad, and something those sports should be addressing.

    I think this point was quite clearly addressed.

    The reality of world-class sport is that competitors have a rather limited time window in which they are competitive, before the realities of age slow them down. How long that window is varies from sport to sport, but there are few sports in which over-40s compete at the highest level, for example.

    Next reality - a woman who is significantly pregnant cannot simultaneously be competing at a high level in her sport. Realistically, it probably takes six months to a year from giving birth to regaining competitive form, if we assume that the woman has all the support she needs etc. So a world-class sportswoman who wants a baby has to take probably a bit more than a year, minimum away from competition.

    It's really hard to recover your peak form after that kind of break. Serena Williams, for example, is awesome, and returned to world-class tennis after having a baby; I'd argue that she hasn't yet quite recovered the form she had before her pregnancy, and may not do so.

    There's at least one female cyclist who has regained her form after having a baby, but I'm not sure that extends to other sports.

    There is certainly a financial factor, and perhaps you could lay that at the feet of the sport itself - lots of athletes are funded by sponsorships, and the sponsors want a return on their investment. If an athlete isn't competing - let alone not performing well - then the sponsors are going to go away. Suppose finances were taken out of the equation - suppose athletes all paid in to a fund, that would support pregnant members / new mothers financially for a year or so. Do you suppose much would change?
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Did we not just try to have a whole thread on that very topic in Epiphanies? And it got canned, because you can't discuss men's roles and responsibilities in Epiphanies?

    You can have that conversation in Purg.

    In case you hadn't noticed, this is Epiphanies. It seems a bit rich to complain, in an Epiphanies thread, that nobody was talking about the responsibility of men with respect to pregnancy and child-reading in this discussion, shortly after a thread in Epiphanies that discussed exactly that was abruptly closed and ruled unacceptable for Epiphanies.

    The Ship has ruled that we can't discuss that topic here. For you to complain that we're not discussing that topic here doesn't seem very reasonable. This is precisely a consequence of that particular ruling.

    That’s a fair point. My apologies. My 17 year old gets her exam results on Thursday so I’ve been a bit distracted ...
  • On a related point, it is notable that the women’s decisions in that article are being impacted by the prevalent expectation of little support for a decision to have a baby, by members of their sport. Which I think is sad, and something those sports should be addressing.

    I think this point was quite clearly addressed.

    The reality of world-class sport is that competitors have a rather limited time window in which they are competitive, before the realities of age slow them down. How long that window is varies from sport to sport, but there are few sports in which over-40s compete at the highest level, for example.

    Next reality - a woman who is significantly pregnant cannot simultaneously be competing at a high level in her sport. Realistically, it probably takes six months to a year from giving birth to regaining competitive form, if we assume that the woman has all the support she needs etc. So a world-class sportswoman who wants a baby has to take probably a bit more than a year, minimum away from competition.

    It's really hard to recover your peak form after that kind of break. Serena Williams, for example, is awesome, and returned to world-class tennis after having a baby; I'd argue that she hasn't yet quite recovered the form she had before her pregnancy, and may not do so.
    There's at least one female cyclist who has regained her form after having a baby, but I'm not sure that extends to other sports.

    There is certainly a financial factor, and perhaps you could lay that at the feet of the sport itself - lots of athletes are funded by sponsorships, and the sponsors want a return on their investment. If an athlete isn't competing - let alone not performing well - then the sponsors are going to go away. Suppose finances were taken out of the equation - suppose athletes all paid in to a fund, that would support pregnant members / new mothers financially for a year or so. Do you suppose much would change?

    Certainly the physical impact is the physical impact, but things like people thinking you don’t care about your sport if you get pregnant are potentially changeable - likewise timescales for races for qualification for a squad etc.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    Having sex isn't a human right, you know.
    Jesus, fucking Christ. Nearly for the entirety of human existence, males having the right to sex has been implicit and explicit. Now that women are in the convo, suddenly it isn't.

    I didn't have you pegged as a supporter of the Incel movement.
    Your first instinct was correct, this latter review is incorrect.
    I could have worded that better, I suppose.
    No one has the right to have sex, but that is not what is being discussed. MtM's post, in context, pushes more towards women not being allowed sex.
  • On a related point, it is notable that the women’s decisions in that article are being impacted by the prevalent expectation of little support for a decision to have a baby, by members of their sport. Which I think is sad, and something those sports should be addressing.

    I think this point was quite clearly addressed.

    The reality of world-class sport is that competitors have a rather limited time window in which they are competitive, before the realities of age slow them down. How long that window is varies from sport to sport, but there are few sports in which over-40s compete at the highest level, for example.

    Next reality - a woman who is significantly pregnant cannot simultaneously be competing at a high level in her sport. Realistically, it probably takes six months to a year from giving birth to regaining competitive form, if we assume that the woman has all the support she needs etc. So a world-class sportswoman who wants a baby has to take probably a bit more than a year, minimum away from competition.

    It's really hard to recover your peak form after that kind of break. Serena Williams, for example, is awesome, and returned to world-class tennis after having a baby; I'd argue that she hasn't yet quite recovered the form she had before her pregnancy, and may not do so.

    There's at least one female cyclist who has regained her form after having a baby, but I'm not sure that extends to other sports.

    There is certainly a financial factor, and perhaps you could lay that at the feet of the sport itself - lots of athletes are funded by sponsorships, and the sponsors want a return on their investment. If an athlete isn't competing - let alone not performing well - then the sponsors are going to go away. Suppose finances were taken out of the equation - suppose athletes all paid in to a fund, that would support pregnant members / new mothers financially for a year or so. Do you suppose much would change?
    The particular sport has huge variation in longevity. And in opportunity. Take Simone Biles who competes in a sport that has extremely short adult viability and also limited opportunity to participate in the sport's defining events (Olympics).
    And not all athletes are of the level of Serena Williams or Simone Biles. Most are not, many are just good enough to be competing or on a team. Why should they be punished?

  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited August 2020
    hosting

    Hello,
    can I remind people they're not on the Hell board or Purgatory? I know tempers can flare on this subject because it is indeed one of those where 'issues and identity significantly overlap', but we're kind of trying to avoid the old knock-down drag-out approach to discussing these issues, so maybe let's try to assume a bit more good faith in each other and if someone's approach really pisses you off, for that there is Hell and if this approach doesn't suit your liking for knock-down fights and witty or scathing one liners aimed at people, then for that there is Purgatory.

    Have a think about some of the contributions people have made on this board where they've opened up and talked about losing beloved children and facing difficult pregnancies and then ask whether your witty one liner or devastating put down is really worth it, if it deters others from contributing at a deeper more personal level?

    Thanks!
    Louise
    Epiphanies Host

    hosting off
  • TelfordTelford Ship-mate
    Gee D wrote: »
    BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.

    The only 100%, absolutely and completely* effective method is abstention, not the most attractive of courses.

    *Add any further if you wish.

    If one wants to concentrate on their athletic career, abstention would not be a bad choice.
  • TelfordTelford Ship-mate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    Having sex isn't a human right, you know.
    Jesus, fucking Christ.
    Disgusting and offensive.

  • Telford wrote: »
    If one wants to concentrate on their athletic career, abstention would not be a bad choice.

    Or one could use sensible contraception and resort to early abortion when that fails, which is what those women did.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Take Simone Biles who competes in a sport that has extremely short adult viability and also limited opportunity to participate in the sport's defining events (Olympics).

    Sure - but perhaps the question isn't so much of an issue for gymnasts, because by the time they're at an age when many women are considering starting a family, their competitive career is already over. Simone Biles is 23. I expect she'll compete in Tokyo, and will then retire.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And not all athletes are of the level of Serena Williams or Simone Biles. Most are not, many are just good enough to be competing or on a team. Why should they be punished?

    You mean punished by being replaced on the team by someone else who is playing better? In a normal job, if someone gets pregnant, or is injured, or whatever, then employers make reasonable accommodation for the fact that they can't do some of the physical tasks they've done before, and that is right and proper.

    If a soccer player gets injured, they don't play while they're recovering, and there's no guarantee they'll get their spot on the team back - there's no guarantee that any member of a team won't be dropped if they're performing badly. I'm not sure that pregnancy should be treated differently from an injury.
  • .... I'm not sure that pregnancy should be treated differently from an injury.

    It's called the "nine-month injury":

    https://rainycityrollerderby.com/2013/01/the-nine-month-injury/
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Pregnancy is not an injury, surely the issue is the performance of the person at the point at which they are ready to return to work - and what processes are in place to try to coach someone back to that standard.

    Basically, bugger all research has been done on coaching high performance athletes to return after pregnancy - and that creates a cycle of not having the information, and therefore not being able to support the athletes who try this.

    Pregnancy doesn’t (necessarily/usually) cripple you. Innovations such as Williams tried with the bodysuit, need development and testing. https://uk.style.yahoo.com/serena-williams-makes-post-pregnancy-comeback-killer-bodysuit-084636173.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEk3qfovORmMeymK_3O2t-G-A3GK-gJfNqmQ5t6Or36v-jOvlzeCyKG4L0LHX4EUDMLXJLF5kR2KDJsdJGavSOgAUPj__EkFSb3Jm2A65B2hahEemYcagOwEwJZ1Q4qIOvKA6BsyXiXDOpfuy8_yg_mCxCVOknYN3W0Rw9UwZmKW

    (Williams was very unlucky, pregnancy doesn’t usually give you a pulmonary embolism - conversely lucky to survive, PEs are often fatal.)
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Take Simone Biles who competes in a sport that has extremely short adult viability and also limited opportunity to participate in the sport's defining events (Olympics).

    Sure - but perhaps the question isn't so much of an issue for gymnasts, because by the time they're at an age when many women are considering starting a family, their competitive career is already over. Simone Biles is 23. I expect she'll compete in Tokyo, and will then retire.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And not all athletes are of the level of Serena Williams or Simone Biles. Most are not, many are just good enough to be competing or on a team. Why should they be punished?

    You mean punished by being replaced on the team by someone else who is playing better? In a normal job, if someone gets pregnant, or is injured, or whatever, then employers make reasonable accommodation for the fact that they can't do some of the physical tasks they've done before, and that is right and proper.

    If a soccer player gets injured, they don't play while they're recovering, and there's no guarantee they'll get their spot on the team back - there's no guarantee that any member of a team won't be dropped if they're performing badly. I'm not sure that pregnancy should be treated differently from an injury.
    An injury takes whatever time is does to heal. An (early term) abortion ends the need to deal with being off one's game at all. What you are suggesting punishes a female athlete when a male athlete who fathers a child suffers no loss in competitive time.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    An injury takes whatever time is does to heal. An (early term) abortion ends the need to deal with being off one's game at all. What you are suggesting punishes a female athlete when a male athlete who fathers a child suffers no loss in competitive time.

    In what sports are male and female athletes competing against each other for places on the team?

    I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. Pregnancy and childbirth takes a physical toll out of a woman's body. That's biology for you. Are you suggesting that sports teams should select new mothers who haven't yet regained their fitness, on fairness grounds? What, exactly, are you arguing for?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one has the right to have sex, but that is not what is being discussed. MtM's post, in context, pushes more towards women not being allowed sex.

    Only in the same sense that if a man doesn’t want the financial burden of a child then he is not allowed sex. Which is to say, only if they value something else more than the possible consequences that having sex may have.

    As I said before, I’m pro-choice. But this thread is going a bit far for me. It’s treating abortion not as a necessary evil in cases where the health of the mother is at stake or a genuine accident (or crime) has occurred, but as a form of contraception for use after those nights when you just couldn’t be bothered with any of the other forms.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one has the right to have sex, but that is not what is being discussed. MtM's post, in context, pushes more towards women not being allowed sex.

    Only in the same sense that if a man doesn’t want the financial burden of a child then he is not allowed sex. Which is to say, only if they value something else more than the possible consequences that having sex may have.

    As I said before, I’m pro-choice. But this thread is going a bit far for me. It’s treating abortion not as a necessary evil in cases where the health of the mother is at stake or a genuine accident (or crime) has occurred, but as a form of contraception for use after those nights when you just couldn’t be bothered with any of the other forms.

    Then I'm sorry to state it so baldly, but you are not genuinely pro-choice. Pro-choice is literally pro-choice. You can't be pro-choice so long as the woman can validate her choice in ways that meet your approval.

    And of course a couple who do not want children can have sex. It is reasonable of them to use whatever contraceptive precautions suit their individual circumstances but rely on abortion should those precautions fail. Having an abortion because they "couldn’t be bothered with any of the other forms" is both a ridiculous decision on their part and does not reflect what the vast majority actually do.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one has the right to have sex, but that is not what is being discussed. MtM's post, in context, pushes more towards women not being allowed sex.

    Only in the same sense that if a man doesn’t want the financial burden of a child then he is not allowed sex. Which is to say, only if they value something else more than the possible consequences that having sex may have.

    As I said before, I’m pro-choice. But this thread is going a bit far for me. It’s treating abortion not as a necessary evil in cases where the health of the mother is at stake or a genuine accident (or crime) has occurred, but as a form of contraception for use after those nights when you just couldn’t be bothered with any of the other forms.

    Then I'm sorry to state it so baldly, but you are not genuinely pro-choice.

    That's nonsense. You don't have to think all choices are equally valid to support the right to make a choice. I can quite reasonably think it should be legal to, say, test potential medicines on animals but still look askance at someone who does so in preference to tissue studies, while still recognising that animal testing will sometimes be the least-worst option.
  • Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
    a form of contraception for use after those nights when you just couldn’t be bothered with any of the other forms.

    There is nothing in the original article to suggest that is what is happening. I would guess that a professional sportsperson, who has to be disciplined about diet, timetables etc, would most likely fall pregnant as a result of contraceptive failure.

    Anecdotally, one of my pregnancies was the result of a burst condom - no big deal, because we were using condoms in the run-up to starting to try for another baby. However, I was very committed to not getting pregnant at that precise time - because of a previous pregnancy loss I was trying to have the optimal pre- conception twelve weeks, and I'd only been taking folic acid, not changing printer ink* etc for 6 weeks when it happened. We definitely were not being careless.

    *the scare story which was current at the time. I think I was also avoiding the photocopier...
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Hello,
    Just an update to let you know Colin Smith was suspended, so he can't reply to any posts.
    Louise
    Epiphanies host
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Thirdly, the scripture from the New Testament is essentially an emphasis on the meaning of Commandments 1 and 2 in the OT. But Jesus is speaking to believers about that emphasis. If you sign up to serve God by following Jesus you’d better not put any idolatrous object of worship such as a career in front of that. You endanger your soul by so doing. So men who put their career in front of serving God, should there be a clash, are just as guilty as women who do that.

    Yes but in realistic terms who are getting called out for being careerist? How many sermons are preached about men pursuing a career versus women "working outside the home"? It's all well and good to say "all careerism matters" but it's clear that some matters more than others.

    Oh I agree entirely. I think the Jesus standard is even handed but its application in our culture has been anything but. And that is a matter for lament and repent.

    Speaking of which, has any one looked at the balance of male and female responders to this thread. There is a need to reflect on why this has happened. Speaking as both a Host and one of the interested contributors.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Leorning Chnit asked:
    In what sports are male and female athletes competing against each other for places on the team?

    The answer: equestrian sports.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    Leorning Chnit asked:
    In what sports are male and female athletes competing against each other for places on the team?

    The answer: equestrian sports.

    On the other hand they're particularly age-limited, are they?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    An injury takes whatever time is does to heal. An (early term) abortion ends the need to deal with being off one's game at all. What you are suggesting punishes a female athlete when a male athlete who fathers a child suffers no loss in competitive time.

    In what sports are male and female athletes competing against each other for places on the team?
    What does this have to do with anything? Seriously, it is about equal treatment.
    I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. Pregnancy and childbirth takes a physical toll out of a woman's body. That's biology for you. Are you suggesting that sports teams should select new mothers who haven't yet regained their fitness, on fairness grounds? What, exactly, are you arguing for?
    Boggles the mind. seriously, I can't see how you get what you do out of what I am saying, so I think I'll just ignore your contributions on this.

  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    In what sports are male and female athletes competing against each other for places on the team?
    What does this have to do with anything? Seriously, it is about equal treatment.

    Because the equality that is relevant here is how pregnant people / new mothers get treated with respect to those that choose not to get pregnant / continue a pregnancy.

    In normal jobs, treatment of men vs women is very relevant, because they're doing the same work, competing against each other for promotions and opportunities, and so on. In almost all sports (I take Caissa's point about the horses), men and women aren't in direct competition, so the most important comparison as regards pregnancy is between pregnant women and non-pregnant women.

    There are equality arguments between men and women - mostly in terms of pay and perceived importance for women's sports vs men's sports, but I don't think men vs women is the most important comparison here.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. Pregnancy and childbirth takes a physical toll out of a woman's body. That's biology for you. Are you suggesting that sports teams should select new mothers who haven't yet regained their fitness, on fairness grounds? What, exactly, are you arguing for?
    Boggles the mind. seriously, I can't see how you get what you do out of what I am saying, so I think I'll just ignore your contributions on this.

    I haven't got a clue what you're actually arguing for, in concrete terms, which is why I am asking. You've produced lots of statements about "equal treatment" without actually saying what that would look like. You've mentioned how new mothers have a steep hill to climb to get back to their pre-pregnancy fitness, whereas new fathers don't. I agree with you, of course, but that's a biological fact. Having a uterus is a necessary prerequisite for pregnancy. You can't change it, and apart from making a few comments about how it isn't fair, you haven't suggested what you want to do with this fact.

    You keep talking about punishing people who take time out for a pregnancy, but I haven't seen you make an actual positive proposal.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    @Barnabas62 your question about the balance of male and female responders is interesting....

    I think that I have not (thus far!) responded.... but I do think that some of the responses have become a little more reflective.

    But it is still an awful lot of men talking about women......
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one has the right to have sex, but that is not what is being discussed. MtM's post, in context, pushes more towards women not being allowed sex.

    Only in the same sense that if a man doesn’t want the financial burden of a child then he is not allowed sex. Which is to say, only if they value something else more than the possible consequences that having sex may have.
    Except men are allowed to have sex. But you have that wrong even if you adjusted the wording. At present, the position is that a man should be ready to provide support if the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term. The same for a woman.
    As I said before, I’m pro-choice. But this thread is going a bit far for me. It’s treating abortion not as a necessary evil in cases where the health of the mother is at stake or a genuine accident (or crime) has occurred, but as a form of contraception for use after those nights when you just couldn’t be bothered with any of the other forms.
    Except no one, save perhaps Colin Smith, is making that argument. It is indeed a rare position on SOF as far as I can recall. Whilst there might be others, the only ones who treat the issue as you posit that I can recall are Colin and Spiffy.

  • Caissa wrote: »
    Leorning Chnit asked:
    In what sports are male and female athletes competing against each other for places on the team?

    The answer: equestrian sports.
    It doesn't matter that men and women do not compete against each other in most sports. LC's position is still a double standard.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It doesn't matter that men and women do not compete against each other in most sports. LC's position is still a double standard.

    Biology is a double standard.

    There are women who want to run faster than other women, and also want to have children. While they are significantly pregnant, and while they are recovering from that pregnancy, they can't run as fast. Therefore they get beaten by other women who have not chosen pregnancy.

    Clearly male athletes who want children, and have impregnated a woman, don't experience a drop in performance.

    Women athletes are currently choosing to delay starting a family in order to concentrate on being able to run faster than other women. I think their dominant motive is sporting competitiveness, rather than money, so I am skeptical that better financial support for athletes returning to competition after childbirth would make much difference.

    The article discusses abortion, however I don't think that's so terribly relevant - we generally accept, as a society, that women having abortions following a contraceptive failure is OK. I don't see that this is different just because the woman is an athlete.



  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I was simply answering a question, Lilbuddha; I was not commenting on whether the question was germane to the discussion.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one has the right to have sex, but that is not what is being discussed. MtM's post, in context, pushes more towards women not being allowed sex.

    Only in the same sense that if a man doesn’t want the financial burden of a child then he is not allowed sex. Which is to say, only if they value something else more than the possible consequences that having sex may have.
    Except men are allowed to have sex.

    So are women. I’m not sure what point you’re making here.
    As I said before, I’m pro-choice. But this thread is going a bit far for me. It’s treating abortion not as a necessary evil in cases where the health of the mother is at stake or a genuine accident (or crime) has occurred, but as a form of contraception for use after those nights when you just couldn’t be bothered with any of the other forms.
    Except no one, save perhaps Colin Smith, is making that argument.

    Pendragon, third post on this thread. Which then set the tone for much of what follows, to which I was responding.
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    @Barnabas62 your question about the balance of male and female responders is interesting....

    I think that I have not (thus far!) responded.... but I do think that some of the responses have become a little more reflective.

    But it is still an awful lot of men talking about women......

    Should men all leave the thread and let women only talk? That seems to be what you're asking for. Otherwise why the snarky comment about men talking about women?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It doesn't matter that men and women do not compete against each other in most sports. LC's position is still a double standard.

    Biology is a double standard.

    There are women who want to run faster than other women, and also want to have children. While they are significantly pregnant, and while they are recovering from that pregnancy, they can't run as fast. Therefore they get beaten by other women who have not chosen pregnancy.

    But the question here is, as near as I can tell, what about women athletes who did not choose pregnancy, but got pregnant anyway? Should their choice to have an abortion be second-guessed and derided?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    If men are talking more than women at a rate of three to one about abortion, I dunno, maybe people might wonder if that is an altogether good thing and why this is so?

    And if male posters are going to round on our minority of female commenters with accusations of snark and do they want all men to leave the thread? for a decidedly mild comment on this disparity, they might want to ask themselves whether their posting habits, perhaps even unknown or unsuspected by them, might be contributing something to this?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited August 2020
    Ethne Alba

    My reflecting told me a very simple thing. Which is that posting with respect for the views and opinions of women can help to create a more welcoming environment for more reticent women contributors. An open door.

    I’ve always tried to make that a part of my style here, not just in Epiphanies, and I do think it is important to do that. It’s easy to overlook when we get engaged in confrontative issues.

    In common with all the serious discussion forums, Epiphanies can never be a totally safe space. But given the nature of the topics we I think we can make it a encouraging one by the way we post. Or don’t post!

    With that I’ll keep quiet for a while!
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Posting with respect for people’s views and opinions is a given on the Ship, is it not?

    It’s not explicit in the 10Cs, apart from in regard to host-posts, but it is implicit, I’m sure.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    The bar is pretty low in general, Boogie, but higher in Epiphanies given the specific ethos of the forum.

    In general you can be as disrespectful as you like of the opinions and assertions of other Shipmates. And in Purgatory that disrespect can and does unlike all kinds of dismissiveness up to and including “what you say is just total bullshit”. Best, but not necessarily, supported by arguments about why it is BS.

    That’s different to personal insults and attacks on character. ‘Your opinion is stupid’ is different to ‘you are stupid. ‘ But when your personal identity is entwined with your views and opinions that difference is hard to remember. It’s not an academic debating point.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I’m not sure about that @Barnabas62

    Respect doesn’t mean agreement. I can respect both you and your views while completely disagreeing with you.

    “ ... posting with respect for the views and opinions of women can help to create a more welcoming environment for more reticent women contributors.” sounds just a touch patronising to me. ‘Bless her, she can’t cope with robust debate, we should be careful how we speak to her.’

    I’m sure that’s not how you intended it, but it does rather come over that way.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I’m not sure about that @Barnabas62

    Respect doesn’t mean agreement. I can respect both you and your views while completely disagreeing with you.

    “ ... posting with respect for the views and opinions of women can help to create a more welcoming environment for more reticent women contributors.” sounds just a touch patronising to me. ‘Bless her, she can’t cope with robust debate, we should be careful how we speak to her.’

    I’m sure that’s not how you intended it, but it does rather come over that way.
    Try posting on a gamer forum openly as a woman. It doesn't matter how well one makes one's points, how good an offence and defence one has, it can be overwhelming. I read B62 as "Let's not let SOF be the shitfest those places are."
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It doesn't matter that men and women do not compete against each other in most sports. LC's position is still a double standard.

    Biology is a double standard.

    There are women who want to run faster than other women, and also want to have children. While they are significantly pregnant, and while they are recovering from that pregnancy, they can't run as fast. Therefore they get beaten by other women who have not chosen pregnancy.

    But the question here is, as near as I can tell, what about women athletes who did not choose pregnancy, but got pregnant anyway? Should their choice to have an abortion be second-guessed and derided?

    You snipped the paragraph that answered that question, so I'll repeat it here:
    The article discusses abortion, however I don't think that's so terribly relevant - we generally accept, as a society, that women having abortions following a contraceptive failure is OK. I don't see that this is different just because the woman is an athlete.
  • Louise wrote: »
    If men are talking more than women at a rate of three to one about abortion, I dunno, maybe people might wonder if that is an altogether good thing and why this is so?

    Does the participation in abortion discussions on the ship differ markedly from participation in other Purg-style discussions? Based on what I know about the sex of posters here, it doesn't look so terribly different from many of our other discussions - but I might be overlooking something.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I’m not sure about that @Barnabas62

    Respect doesn’t mean agreement. I can respect both you and your views while completely disagreeing with you.

    “ ... posting with respect for the views and opinions of women can help to create a more welcoming environment for more reticent women contributors.” sounds just a touch patronising to me. ‘Bless her, she can’t cope with robust debate, we should be careful how we speak to her.’

    I’m sure that’s not how you intended it, but it does rather come over that way.
    Try posting on a gamer forum openly as a woman. It doesn't matter how well one makes one's points, how good an offence and defence one has, it can be overwhelming. I read B62 as "Let's not let SOF be the shitfest those places are."

    If this is an issue you have yourself I'd certainly recommend RPGnet, despite the name it covers a wide variety of games and has a strong anti-sexism policy.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Does the participation in abortion discussions on the ship differ markedly from participation in other Purg-style discussions? Based on what I know about the sex of posters here, it doesn't look so terribly different from many of our other discussions - but I might be overlooking something.

    The ratio might be much the same as on other threads, but it matters a whole lot more when the topic is something that affects women a lot more deeply than it affects men. Ethne Alba can clarify if I'm wrong, but I think the point was that a lot of women when coming upon a discussion of women's lives that is already dominated by men are less likely to participate. Men here are discussing not only whether women should have abortions in certain situations, but also whether women should have sex.

    Read that again: men are discussing whether women should have sex.

    Of course they are free to do so. But don't expect women to like it, don't expect us to withhold judgement of men who do this, and don't expect a lot of women to jump enthusiastically into a discussion where this is already going on.

  • @mousethief , no snarky talk intended from me. How would that have helped matters?

    I merely reflected what is happening here.


    Maybe when women talk about terminating a pregnancy we do it in a different manner?

    It could be that it is never merely a theoretical position for us?

    It could very easily be a reality.




    Anyway
    This is getting away from female athletes........

  • I certainly don't want men to shut up and leave, but I would hope they:
    a) acknowledge the privilege of not having abortions themselves,
    b) keep in mind that they almost certainly know at least one woman who has had an abortion, whether they are aware of it or not, and
    c) to acknowledge that debating is fun, but beyond ethics and philosophy, the real life political debate is still about whether one man, a certain number of medical professionals, or an entire society has the power to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, incarcerated or hospitalized if necessary. It's about whether women and their doctors should be fined or go to jail if they do have abortions.

    I do think a) and b) are examples of what Epiphanies is about, IMHO FWIW.
  • For those of us who are autistic it is personal too, whether we're male or female. There are organisations out there claiming to advocate for autistic folk (Autism Speaks is the most notorious) which spend much of their funds on research to detect autism in the womb so we can be aborted. This isn't just about ethics, this is about segments of the human population being erased.
Sign In or Register to comment.