|
|
Post by muzled on Feb 7, 2023 10:15:40 GMT 12
Oooh la la, just reading how Bank Populaire (perhaps to be renamed Bank Unpopulaire) have ditched Clarisse Cremer as she's had a kid and isn't racking up the amount of miles they want her to. www.yachtingworld.com/news/the-motherhood-penalty-controversy-as-vendee-globe-skipper-clarisse-cremer-loses-sponsor-143456Sounds like the rules have changed and the race will be over subscribed so it comes down to 'qualifying miles'. But... It’s worth noting that the IMOCA in question, Apivia, was still being raced by its previous skipper Charlie Dalin up to and including last year’s Route du Rhum (he finished 2nd). So the new skipper of the boat when it becomes Banque Populaire XII will still need to qualify the IMOCA with two solo races in 2023 and 2024.After watching her in the last Vendee you'd think she'd be a dream candidate to have doing your advertising. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Feb 7, 2023 10:37:06 GMT 12
I've been following this on social media.
Dumped a top athlete because she was on maternity leave.
Complete uproar.
Sam Davies has done some cutting posts on FB.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Feb 7, 2023 11:24:50 GMT 12
It sounds like she simply fell outside the criteria for qualification and / or fell too far down the sea-miles rankings to qualify?
And surely this could be caused by any number of reasons from pregnancy to illness or other personal matters.
So why should the criteria be relaxed for someone who chose to have a child? You could argue it was their decision and presumably she’s young enough to bounce back and qualify for future races?
Otherwise, where do you draw the line? If someone else got seriously ill and missed qualification due to recovering, would you relax the rules for them too? You could argue that yes you should, because getting ill wasn’t their choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Feb 7, 2023 12:14:24 GMT 12
It sounds like she simply fell outside the criteria for qualification and / or fell too far down the sea-miles rankings to qualify? And surely this could be caused by any number of reasons from pregnancy to illness or other personal matters. So why should the criteria be relaxed for someone who chose to have a child? You could argue it was their decision and presumably she’s young enough to bounce back and qualify for future races? Otherwise, where do you draw the line? If someone else got seriously ill and missed qualification due to recovering, would you relax the rules for them too? You could argue that yes you should, because getting ill wasn’t their choice. Because only women have children. She wouldn't have been dumped if she were a man. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Feb 7, 2023 12:40:44 GMT 12
There seems to be quite a bit more to the story, changing the rules as you go is nothing new in this part of the world, huge money is involved.
The rules about who can and can't race are pretty inconsistent and seem to change to suit someone, just not her.
Quite a discussion on SA for more.
Rebecca Hayter's book on Chis Sayer is quite an eye opener.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Feb 7, 2023 13:04:38 GMT 12
It sounds like she simply fell outside the criteria for qualification and / or fell too far down the sea-miles rankings to qualify? And surely this could be caused by any number of reasons from pregnancy to illness or other personal matters. So why should the criteria be relaxed for someone who chose to have a child? You could argue it was their decision and presumably she’s young enough to bounce back and qualify for future races? Otherwise, where do you draw the line? If someone else got seriously ill and missed qualification due to recovering, would you relax the rules for them too? You could argue that yes you should, because getting ill wasn’t their choice. Because only women have children. She wouldn't have been dumped if she were a man. I think you are taking a very one-dimensional view. She wasn’t dumped because she was a woman. She missed out on qualification for predictable (and voluntarily chosen) reasons. If you extend your logic, you could imagine the same scenarios: “Please excuse me from qualification - because I had a baby - and allow me to continue practising as a doctor / pilot / teacher / nurse (pick an example).” I doubt the bank made the decision lightly and would probably have been warned about potential backlash. All of which might cause them to reconsider continuing sponsorship longer-term, I can imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Feb 7, 2023 13:45:19 GMT 12
Because only women have children. She wouldn't have been dumped if she were a man. I think you are taking a very one-dimensional view. She wasn’t dumped because she was a woman. She missed out on qualification for predictable (and voluntarily chosen) reasons. If you extend your logic, you could imagine the same scenarios: “Please excuse me from qualification - because I had a baby - and allow me to continue practising as a doctor / pilot / teacher / nurse (pick an example).” I doubt the bank made the decision lightly and would probably have been warned about potential backlash. All of which might cause them to reconsider continuing sponsorship longer-term, I can imagine. They didn't drop her from the race, they dropped her altogether. It's called paying lip service to womens sport. Plus it also sounds like whoever takes over the boat still has to get the same qualifying miles as she does so it makes their decision look even more backwards. Without doubt not a decision taken lightly, but they were happy to reap the benefits of having arguably the most marketable sailor in the previoius race so it always seemed likely there would be some bad press about the call to ditch her. But perhaps there is no such thing as bad press? |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Feb 7, 2023 14:31:43 GMT 12
Conflict of interest declaration.
My missus got "made redundant" whilst on maternity leave with our first kid. Complete sham of a process.
We consequently took a complaint on that and got a whole new kitchen funded by her former employer. I managed the legal side of it (having looked into lawyers and advocates, one lawyer charged us a grand for a preliminary assessment (i.e. phone call) and sent us the invoice on gold embossed paper, seriously...)
It is incredibly de-humanising for women to loose their jobs or careers because of the basic biology of having a family. In NZ we have fairly clear laws around this sort of discrimination. But we still were told by recruiters that my missus didn't make the short list for various roles (after one baby) because the employer was worried she'd want to have another one.
Laying my experiences over this Clarisse situation, it is a really bad look when there is so much spoken about equal opportunity in sailing, then one of the PR darlings gets dumped for dubious reasons. All the premier international yachting are working very hard for female involvement, the volvo, Sail GP etc.
Then for Popular Bank to not be able to adapt to basic biology. Clarisse was being very open about her plans and situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Feb 7, 2023 14:39:40 GMT 12
I’m obviously a lonely voice her… but I’m simply challenging the definition of ‘equality.’
In this example it appears she has been treated exactly equally to a man ie she hasn’t made the miles so she’s out.
But you seem to be advocating for ‘inequality’ because you want her to be given preferential (aka ‘unequal’) treatment compared to a man!
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Feb 7, 2023 14:51:33 GMT 12
I’m obviously a lonely voice her… but I’m simply challenging the definition of ‘equality.’ In this example it appears she has been treated exactly equally to a man ie she hasn’t made the miles so she’s out. It's always good when there is a lone voice!  That's not quite right if I've read ze rules correctly. There is a timeframe to get the miles in which goes for another two years. Obviously she's got a kid and can't do that atm but in her opinion she thought she had enough time to make up the miles required. Plus, whoever takes over Apivia will start from scratch with those miles. So effectively she's no further behind than whoever the next skipper is... |
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Feb 7, 2023 16:08:10 GMT 12
I’m obviously a lonely voice her… but I’m simply challenging the definition of ‘equality.’ In this example it appears she has been treated exactly equally to a man ie she hasn’t made the miles so she’s out. It's always good when there is a lone voice! That's not quite right if I've read ze rules correctly. There is a timeframe to get the miles in which goes for another two years. Obviously she's got a kid and can't do that atm but in her opinion she thought she had enough time to make up the miles required. Plus, whoever takes over Apivia will start from scratch with those miles. So effectively she's no further behind than whoever the next skipper is... Mmmm, ok so maybe it’s not black & white. All I can assume (always a bad thing) is someone has reservations about her ability to commit to making up the miles in the allotted time, given her status as a new mother. I can’t really comment on whether that’s a fair assumption or an unfair one. I certainly don’t know enough to be sure. But I do think it’s probably not the same as an everyday employment scenario. I’m married with kids with a wife who’s been through the whole maternity break thing, so I’m aware of how it can and should work - and how it can go wrong too. For example in our case, one of our children was born with a life-threatening condition that required frequent medical attention. That opens a whole new can of worms in the standard scenario of “returning to work after maternity leave.” I’m not saying that’s the case here but who knows? Which triggers another thought, is she technically contracted / employed by the bank? If not and if she’s simply the recipient of a large sponsorship donation with some conditions attached, that presumably weakens her ‘employment’ position in any court of law. |
|
|
|
Post by OLD ROPE 👀 on Feb 8, 2023 6:57:05 GMT 12
If she was a man and couldn't do the Job ( miles) he would be gone TOO!
You guys are as bad as Stalinda.. STOP BRINGING SEX AND RACE INTO A SIMPLE ISSUE!
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 8, 2023 10:36:34 GMT 12
To be fair I haven't dug into all the details but my take on it is that given the elite level of competition and the mind blowing $ involved, she needs to be comitted 100% or step aside for someone that is. This isn't a receptionists position at the local school that can be covered for maternity leave with little disruption.
I can only assume that at this level the campaign is a fulltime affair? What do the rest of the team do while she is off playing mummy?
The sponsors no doubt want a return on their dollars and understandably would be a bit peeved to see their campaign stall because one member of the team decides to start a family.
If she isn't in a position to give the campaign, and the team, 100% then the right thing would be to stand down rather than make her sponsers an easy target for all the rabid woketards that are eagerly awaiting the next oppurtunity to be offended. I suspect she has burnt some bridges.
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Feb 8, 2023 10:49:23 GMT 12
If she was a man and couldn't do the Job ( miles) he would be gone TOO! You guys are as bad as Stalinda.. STOP BRINGING SEX AND RACE INTO A SIMPLE ISSUE! Sounds like you didn't actually read the story before commenting there Punisher. There are a couple of things going on that really don't add up. 1) They don't have a boat. They are buying Apiva, but it is still being used by the vendor. So being on maternity leave made zero difference to doing qual miles. 2) Whoever they replace her with has to start from scratch with qual miles. This is the bit that is illogical. So what is actually going on? She clearly communicated her plans for pregnancy and maternity leave to the Bank / Sponsor, and they said they were committed to her. This included the programme / plan for meeting the qual criteria. The Bank agreed with it. There is nothing wrong with her CV. She qualified last time, actually completed the race (no small achievement), got 12th AND holds the women's solo world record for fastest circumnavigation. Now the Bank says she presents too much 'risk'. The inference is around risk of not qualifying, but is that the problem? Perhaps it is a PR risk of perception from old white guys that she is abandoning her baby to go sailing? She was a PR darling when she was young, hot and single. Now she has a baby, maybe she is not so appealing? Old cow / new cow theory? Just putting the question out there. The crunch will come when the Bank announce who is replacing her. From the mood of the internet, it sounds like that person will attract a lot of negative attention. It may mitigate things if they choose another women. If they choose a man it will be a PR disaster. They also need to choose someone that presents less risk than the world record holder and 12th place getter last time. I would expect that person to be Armel LeClrec, whom raced for the Bank previously and has been coaching Clarisse. It would be an eye opener if the replacement was from outside of the already big Bank Popular stable. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Feb 8, 2023 10:57:51 GMT 12
To be fair I haven't dug into all the details but my take on it is that given the elite level of competition and the mind blowing $ involved, she needs to be comitted 100% or step aside for someone that is. This isn't a receptionists position at the local school that can be covered for maternity leave with little disruption. I can only assume that at this level the campaign is a fulltime affair? What do the rest of the team do while she is off playing mummy? The sponsors no doubt want a return on their dollars and understandably would be a bit peeved to see their campaign stall because one member of the team decides to start a family. If she isn't in a position to give the campaign, and the team, 100% then the right thing would be to stand down rather than make her sponsers an easy target for all the rabid woketards that are eagerly awaiting the next oppurtunity to be offended. I suspect she has burnt some bridges. My 2 cents. She agreed the maternity and qualifying plan with the Bank, I understand before she got pregnant. Or at least very very early on. Sam Davies has run a full campaign with a young child, so I'm not seeing the issue. The main issue appears to be the perception that men can campaign when they have small children, but women can't. There is still 2 years to qualify, and by the time the race comes around the kid will be like 4 or something, hardly a newborn. It is assuming the comment on burning bridges. Yes she wasn't the meek and subservient one to go quietly, but you have to ask who was it that burnt the bridge? She certainly didn't start the fire... |
|
