Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Not Heroic to Choke and Quit
I don’t want to be overly critical of Simone Biles’ decision to withdraw from the Olympic team’s competitions. I haven’t followed gymnastics for years, but my impression is that Biles is widely considered to be the greatest female gymnast of all time. Her ability and achievements are extraordinary.
During the first rotation in the team all-around competition, Biles had a disappointing vault. She then pulled out of the competition, with varied explanations that seem unconvincing. It looks, to me, like she briefly lost her mojo. This would be, here’s that word again, disappointing, but understandable. Nobody’s perfect.
Biles set herself up for this, to some extent. She’s sometimes called the GOAT, meaning “greatest of all time.” She apparently leaned into this hype, like Muhammad Ali, by wearing leotards bearing an image of a goat. Humility is a wiser course, I think. But again, I don’t want to dump on Biles, who is quite young and the young rarely display notable wisdom.
The thing that is strange, to me, has been the reaction in much of the media. The narrative seems to be that Biles quitting was heroic, in order to take care of her “mental health.” Here’s a sample of this reaction:
- “The Radical Courage of Simone Biles’s Exit from the Team USA Olympic Finals.” The New Yorker.
- “Simone Biles’ Olympic withdrawal could be her greatest act of heroism.” SBNation.
- “The world was clamouring for the American to outdo her competitors as well as herself. It took exceptional bravery for her to step back.” The Guardian.
- “As athletes, we’re told to tough it out. It’s toxic masculinity at work, this idea that we should ignore our emotions and what our body needs. We call what she did heroic.” Time.
I dissent, not respectfully (yet). I do not find it heroic to choke, and I do not find it heroic to quit after choking.
It is understandable, a bit disappointing, fine. Maybe she was having a bad day, though all that we know is that she had a single bad vault. Biles might or might not have done well on the remaining events. We’ll never know, because she gave up.
We do expect more of our heroes.
But it’s the media reaction that is so bizarre, to me. What in the world is going on here? Is it just an attack on competence? Is it the typical resentful, sour-grapes attitude of the ordinary?
Is it the victim narrative? The silly Time article linked above says that gymnasts “are taught that their bodies are not their own.” In sport that “sacrifices bodies, minds and lives for perfection.” What?
Is it because Biles is female? Is it because she is black? Is it because the media had hyped a black woman as the greatest athlete ever, just unbelievable, wait ’til you see her, she’ll blow your socks off . . . well, not so much. Not that day.
So, apparently, the media has to lie about it. To pretend that failure and worse, quitting, is heroic. I do not see any justification for this narrative, and I do not see any reason to dissent “respectfully.” I am open to a counter-argument, as perhaps I’m missing something.
Again, I don’t want to beat up on Simone Biles. She’s had an amazing career. She appears to have cracked under the pressure, at these particular Olympic Games. That is sad, but not the end of the world.
You know, even Mighty Casey struck out. There was no joy in Mudville that day, but that’s OK. Casey was still a hero, just not a perfect one.
But I don’t recall anything about Casey walking away from the plate after his first strike, or making excuses. That’s not what heroes do.
Published in Sports
? I think you intentionally misread what I wrote.
She did everything Fred did, but backwards and in high heels. I’d like to see him do that.
?
“Should” is not the same as “must.”
As a real American, @randywebster has this right. Every American individual has a right to choose how they conduct their life. We don’t like mandates, do we?
I’m okay with “should” as long as we include appropriate recognition – and perhaps a bit of opprobrium – that women who don’t have children are, in effect, shifting their natural biological burden to other women.
And yes, it is a natural, biological burden. Men can’t have children. And so women – as a whole – must replace not only themselves, but also men. It’s just math. If you have a population of 3 men and 3 women, and two of the women “choose” not to have children, the fourth woman must have 6 children just to keep things equal: she has to replace herself, the other two women, and all three men. The math is the same whether you have a population of 6, or 6 billion. It just takes longer to get to zero, but the result is the same.
I’m not convinced that the human population should stay the same or increase forever.
I approve of your qualifying statements.
“Be fruitful and multiply” is the first command.
I expect fluctuations, but we should be encouraging a culture that doesn’t go to 0.
I’m not Christian or Jewish, so I don’t find that persuasive. And wishing that the US population (for example) was closer to 250 million instead of at 340 million and (always) rising, isn’t really the same as wanting it to go to zero.
I am
Don’t tell that the the NYT ethicist. He wanted the human population to go to zero. For the planet.
Which is the point I’ve been making since the start: each woman, on average, has to have two children just to keep things “static.” Any less than that, and you do end up at zero, eventually.
Even if you say “Well, it’s fine for the population to decline for now, so it’s no problem if women don’t want to have children,” when you get to whatever point of population you think is “good,” at that point women need to start having 2 children each, to KEEP that “good” point. Otherwise it just keeps going down and down… to zero. And how do you explain to THOSE LATER women that it was fine for EARLIER women to not have children, but NOT fine for THEM? It seems to be the same argument that I and others are making now, but women today just don’t want it to apply to THEM
Yes, I have understood your point, each time you made it. I guess I’m just not going to be as worried about it as you are.
I guess that makes sense, especially if you’re not religious. Steyn also mentions in that best-interview-ever, that secular societies – and people – are basically present-day societies, they don’t really think there is any future, so all that matters is their own enjoyment in the here and now.
Fortunately for those people, their parents didn’t feel that way.
You totally get me.
Kinda puts the Ponzi-scheme-based society we now occupy into a rather ominous trajectory. Oh well, we had a good run while it lasted…
Ponzi schemes always collapse.
I’m in the middle here. My daughter is a dancer and worked constantly and diligently at it. Very demanding. She didn’t get her period until age 19, and then it was sporadic. And she wants children someday. I’m all for her dancing, but Mother Nature is a bitch.
I wrestled for eight years. I don’t know about my body fat ratio; I typically lost about 30 lbs. to get down to weight. I don’t think it affected my sex life.
But even there, you depend on other people having children even if you don’t, because you need their children to work at the businesses you want to go to, etc. Even to provide your healthcare when you get old. Unless you plan to just suddenly drop dead without ever needing anything. And then rot in the street because nobody had children to bury you…
Really though, even if YOU don’t care about society/civilization going on, most other people do, and arguably civilizations have their own motivations too.
There are already tax deductions etc for having children, but if it gets to a sufficient point that may have to be amplified. Maybe something like a 50% tax on people who don’t have kids, to pay someone else to have them for you. (In addition to their own, so the rate may end up going over 50%.)
Are you sure it was a good idea to be all for her dancing?
That’s part of the point: It mostly doesn’t, for men.
I think it’s important to not let people have too much of a la-de-da attitude about some pretty serious things.
It’s like Randy saying that he’d rather have society fade away or be overtaken by “more fecund” societies, than tell women to have babies. Those more fecund societies have women who are having babies. And if they’re less civilized, who probably suffers the most in them? The women. So, Randy is saying he’d rather THOSE women suffer. Even if he doesn’t think he is saying that. It’s like people who voted for Biden, saying they didn’t vote for all the stupid/crazy/dangerous stuff he’s doing. Well, actually, yes they did.
Okay, I understand the comments on not quitting.
However, It seems that Simon Biles was molested ( or at least she has accused the perp of that) by team doc Larry Nasser which has caused her great emotional trauma. Nasser has also been accused by several other girls on the team, which gives credence for that claim. That may be why she folded under pressure.
As a father of a daughter who has been date raped I feel for her. I think people need to give her some slack.
I’m so thankful that you’re here to show me the error of my ways.
It’s a lousy, thankless job, but apparently someone needs to do it.
I’m inspired and humbled by your heroism.
And that takes us back to an earlier point in the discussion.